Orange, defective goods and SOGASA1982

NFH

Techhead wrote: »

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.

No, it's a common misconception that once the warranty has expired, the consumer loses all rights to a remedy of defective goods. Which magazine have done tests in shops and found differences between major retailers on knowledge of basic consumer rights. Some shops get it right and know the law. For example, when I've been into John Lewis with a defective product, they just replace it or refund it immediately without any argument at all.

Retailers should not be allowed to sell defective goods (regardless of whether the defect is immediately obvious or becomes apparent later as a durability defect) and to avoid responsibility for remedying the problem. Warranties are an additional right given by manufacturers and do not replace the consumer's statutory rights. The only statutory onus is upon the retailer, not upon the manufacturer.

Meepster

NFH wrote: »

Who's to say that I have?

And that's the reason you need to get a report done. You need to prove that you haven't damaged it (or damage hasn't occurred through normal wear and tear as mentioned previously). It's not up to them to prove you have damaged it...

Meepster

NFH wrote: »

Retailers should not be allowed to sell defective goods (regardless of whether the defect is immediately obvious or becomes apparent later as a durability defect) and to avoid responsibility for remedying the problem. Warranties are an additional right given by manufacturers and do not replace the consumer's statutory rights.The only statutory onus is upon the retailer, not upon the manufacturer.

No retailer sets out to sell defective goods. But unfortunately goods can become defective for various reasons, due to both product and user fault. SOGA and it's derivatives are there to protect the retailer AND the consumer. The 6 month stipulation is there to protect the consumer against inherently faulty products AND the retailer from abuse of the Acts by the consumer.

gjchester

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).

Sorry no.

A mobile phone contract is really two contracts.

One is the supply of hardware that is conditional on you taking out an airtime contract. Once the hardware is supplied the two contrcts are not linked. That means if the phone dies or is lost / stolen the network is not liable for a repair or replacment.

Oranges T&C are clear

http://www1.orange.co.uk/mobileterms/pdfs/PAYM-terms-and-conditions-for-the-supply-of-Orange-Network-Services-20110215.pdf

14 Devices
your Device is not a part of your Contract
14.1 Your Device and Accessories are acquired by you outside the terms of your Contract.

NFH wrote: »

Originally Posted by chanz4
whos to say you have not got the earphone water damaged

Who's to say that I have?

The SOGA you like to quote requires you to prove that they were faulty at manufacture, after a period of 6 months. Before 6 months the manufacturer has to prove they were not.

You say you have had legal advice but you don't appear to have read the contracts terms and conditions.

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

A mobile phone contract is really two contracts. One is the supply of hardware that is conditional on you taking out an airtime contract. Once the hardware is supplied the two contrcts are not linked. That means if the phone dies or is lost / stolen the network is not liable for a repair or replacment.

Orange may well try to separate the agreement into two contracts, one for services and one for goods, but both remain governed and linked by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. It is reasonable to expect the goods to be sufficiently durable to remain of satisfactory quality for the duration of the services.

However, you are correct in saying that if the phone is lost or stolen, then the network is not liable for a replacement.

gjchester

NFH wrote: »

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.

Which suggests the ear bud has been damaged by something getting inside it and touching the speaker.. That fact it was not damaged at the time you got it, and it's likely to be ingress of something suggests it's down to either sdomething you did or lack of care and attention on your part on the handling or storage of the earphones.

NFH wrote: »

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.

Regardless of what you think the foreign call centres are Oranges agents. What they say is to be taken as Oranges position.

NFH wrote: »

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?

No they would point you to the warranty which is a year but it also depends on the way the phone is damaged. User damage is never covered by any warranty or SOGA and other damage you would need to prove was there at the time of manufacture. Again the law requires items to last a reasonable time, and a year is not unreasonable on an item that usually would be replaced after 18/24 months and tends to be thrown in pockets/ bags etc without much care or attention.

You may not like it but that would be the position. Many phone makers offer a two year warranty Apple don't, if you want to extends it you need to buy Apple care.

NFH

Meepster wrote: »

And that's the reason you need to get a report done. You need to prove that you haven't damaged it (or damage hasn't occurred through normal wear and tear as mentioned previously).

I only need to get a report done if Orange disputes that the goods had a durability defect at the time of supply. So far, Orange have not disputed this. Instead they are instead quoting warranties and displaying an ignorance of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

gjchester

You keep linking the SOGA.

Can you specifically point to where you think they are in breach?

Techhead_2

NFH wrote: »

No, it's a common misconception that once the warranty has expired, the consumer loses all rights to a remedy of defective goods. Which magazine have done tests in shops and found differences between major retailers on knowledge of basic consumer rights. Some shops get it right and know the law. For example, when I've been into John Lewis with a defective product, they just replace it or refund it immediately without any argument at all.

Retailers should not be allowed to sell defective goods (regardless of whether the defect is immediately obvious or becomes apparent later as a durability defect) and to avoid responsibility for remedying the problem. Warranties are an additional right given by manufacturers and do not replace the consumer's statutory rights. The only statutory onus is upon the retailer, not upon the manufacturer.

I'm beginning to think you are trolling or perhaps you genuinely are as muddle headed as you seem. You have assigned a meaning to my post that does not exist. You have even quoted the post so people can see what you have done.

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

You keep linking the SOGA.

Can you specifically point to where you think they are in breach?

No, I'm not linking to the SOGA1979 but to the SOGASA1982, which is different. I've already stated at the beginning of this thread which sections are relevant - Section 4(2) and Section 18(3)(e).