Orange, defective goods and SOGASA1982

Meepster

NFH wrote: »

Incorrect. The phone is supplied under the same agreement as the service, and the supply of the phone at the price paid is conditional upon supply of the service. That is why the agreement is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 as opposed to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

Anyway, I've already had legal advice from a solicitor on this, so the question is not about the law but about the easiest communication channel to obtain a replacement from Orange, and why Orange are flouting their legal obligations.

Ok, whichever route you go down (SOGA or SOGASA) after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the item is inherently faulty and said fault isn't due to normal "wear and tear". To have any form of recourse in this matter you will need to supply a report (from someone qualified to produce one) that indicates it is a fault with the product.

Good luck (You'll need it)

robt_2

Meepster wrote: »

Ok, whichever route you go down (SOGA or SOGASA) after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the item is inherently faulty and said fault isn't due to normal "wear and tear". To have any form of recourse in this matter you will need to supply a report (from someone qualified to produce one) that indicates it is a fault with the product.

Good luck (You'll need it)

And that will cost more than the 6 quid to replace them.

grumbler

robt wrote: »

Just to clarify, they are a pair of headphones, not a 'hands free kit' as you are implying.

Although this makes no difference, I have to disagree. A microphone makes this headphones a hands free kit.

robt_2

grumbler wrote: »

Although this makes no difference, I have to disagree. Amicrophone makes this headphones a hands free kit.

No, they are a pair of cheap bundled headphones with a microphone. That is hands free - it is not a 'kit'.

A 'kit' implies (to me) that it is a specialist hands free kit (hardware) bought separately - which I would expect to last longer than a year. Examples of what I would call a hands free kit - http://www.parrot.com/uk/products/hands-free-car-kits

But is is just semantics, it makes no difference to the OP.

NFH

Tony5101 wrote: »

Legal advice for a £26 item....good luck getting the earphones replaced, but legal advice !!!!!!!!! Seems a bit disproportionate to me.

Why? You have no idea whether this legal advice has a marginal cost to me or how casually and easily I can obtain it.

Meepster wrote: »

Ok, whichever route you go down (SOGA or SOGASA) after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the item is inherently faulty and said fault isn't due to normal "wear and tear". To have any form of recourse in this matter you will need to supply a report (from someone qualified to produce one) that indicates it is a fault with the product.

Thanks for the only correct advice given so far in this thread, although I already knew it. The fault is not with the cable but with the speaker in one of the earphones, because it doesn't occur at very low volumes and can be mitigated by tapping the affected earphone, which suggests that it was not caused by wear and tear to the cable as suggested by others earlier in this thread. If Orange disputes that the goods had a durability defect at the time of supply, then I would need to obtain such a report. If the report confirms that the goods do have a durability defect, then Orange must pay the cost of the report. It would be less costly for Orange just to swap the defective goods quickly without arguing, which is what many reputable legally-aware retailers would do. However, Orange have not disputed this yet, and I don't count what the foreign call centre said because they didn't even ask what the defect was.

We're obviously talking here about a relatively low-cost item, and others have drawn attention to this fact. However, what worries me much more is what happens if something later goes wrong with the phone itself after Apple's 1-year warranty has expired. Would Orange likewise display similar igorance of its legal obligations?

chanz4

whos to say you have not got the earphone water damaged

NFH

chanz4 wrote: »

whos to say you have not got the earphone water damaged

Who's to say that I have?

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

I replied that I am not claiming under a warranty but under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 of which I gave the guy a copy and drew his attention to Section 4(2) and Section 18(3)(e). He said he would e-mail his support people and phone me within 48 hours, but I have since heard nothing.

Why are Orange employees not properly trained to honour Orange's obligations under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982? One can't expect them to understand the intricacies of the law, but at least to understand that Orange is obliged to replace defective goods if they do not last a reasonable time (i.e. at least the length of the contract for service under which the goods were supplied).

It seems to me that Orange employees are properly trained as they refused to replace your headset/hands free that was a year old, and, what's more, you have just agreed they were right!!!!!.


You just acknowledged that Meepster was right when he wrote

"Ok, whichever route you go down (SOGA or SOGASA) after 6 months, the onus is on you to prove that the item is inherently faulty and said fault isn't due to normal "wear and tear". To have any form of recourse in this matter you will need to supply a report (from someone qualified to produce one) that indicates it is a fault with the product."

You wrote "Thanks for the only correct advice given so far in this thread, although I already knew it. "

You do need to try not to contradict yourself when trying to make a case.

It all hinges upon "How long is reasonable" and thereby hangs the lawyers' income.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You do need to try not to contradict yourself when trying to make a case.

I'm not contradicting myself. The response from the Orange shop was that only the warranty is relevant. Warranties are in addition to, and do not replace, one's statutory rights. At no point did Orange dispute that a durability defect existed at the time of supply. On the contrary, their reason for not replacing the defective goods was because the warranty has expired, and they incorrectly believe that somehow when an Apple warranty is involved, everything is different.

Techhead_2

NFH wrote: »

I'm not contradicting myself. The response from the Orange shop was that only the warranty is relevant. Warranties are in addition to, and do not replace, one's statutory rights. At no point did Orange dispute that a durability defect existed at the time of supply. On the contrary, their reason for not replacing the defective goods was because the warranty has expired, and they incorrectly believe that somehow when an Apple warranty is involved, everything is different.

Did it occur to you that they said that because they did not believe that any sensible person would try to claim under either of the acts? And therefore would be claiming under warranty.

Personally I believe your claim to be a waste of time and frivolous.