broken iphone4, charged £119 to repair

Tom83

NFH wrote: »

Consensus by whom? See Section 1(3) for an explanation of the irrelevance of whether the contract for service is provided under the same contract.


The phone is transferred to the consumer as an implied and advertised condition of the contract for service; it is not a gift. It is not a sale of goods but a transfer of goods, governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

this was the understanding I had. Also to the next post (sorry forgot to copy and paste it) It is the amount of time you, I or a resonable person would expect the product to resonably last, Although I understand this can be a bit of a grey area.

Well at the very least we have a debate on the durabitly of a product and what a comsumers rights should be.

Thanks for all the comments, please keep them coming

mrochester

I think you're best course of action will be to get the phone back and take it to an Apple shop yourself. It is not uncommon for Apple to exchange faulty devices outside of the 12 month warranty period.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

But failure of the handset doesn't mean that the airtime contract is affected. That continues even if the handset is completely knackered.

The problem with all UK legislation on electrical items is that there is no definition of a "reasonable time".

A court would find that a reasonable time would be at least the length of the contract for service for which the goods were intended to be used. It is relevant that the goods and service are sold at interdependent prices and at the same time.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

A court would find that a reasonable time would be at least the length of the contract for service for which the goods were intended to be used. It is relevant that the goods and service are sold at interdependent prices and at the same time.

That is pure speculation on your part without a shred of evidence to back it up. Or have you a precedent you can point to?

As contracts can be from 1 - 3 years, how the same handset's minimum "reasonable" life could be variable dependant upon the length of an airtime contract is nonsense.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

That is pure speculation on your part without a shred of evidence to back it up. Or have you a precedent you can point to?

I was told this by a solicitor from a well known consumer organisation. I agree and it seems obvious to me.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

As contracts can be from 1 - 3 years, how the same handset's minimum "reasonable" life could be variable dependant upon the length of an airtime contract is nonsense.

If a network provided a phone intended for use over a 3-year contract, and that phone was not sufficiently durable to last for the contract term of the services, then a court would find in favour of the consumer.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

I was told this by a solicitor from a well known consumer organisation. I agree and it seems obvious to me.

If a network provided a phone intended for use over a 3-year contract, and that phone was not sufficiently durable to last for the contract term of the services, then a court would find in favour of the consumer.

So you have 2 cases in front of a judge. 2 people who have got, say, the same Iphone that packed in after 15 months.

The guy with the 3 year contract would win in your scenario, but the guy with a 12 or 24 month contract would have a much poorer claim?

On the point of the solicitor's view, I still maintain that there is no case law that I could find to back this up - unfortunately.

chanz4

My business phone contract was a 36 month one taken in 2009, I got a cheap little nokia.....apply that to the rule.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

So you have 2 cases in front of a judge. 2 people who have got, say, the same Iphone that packed in after 15 months.

The guy with the 3 year contract would win in your scenario, but the guy with a 12 or 24 month contract would have a much poorer claim?

No, both claims would be successful.

NFH

chanz4 wrote: »

My business phone contract was a 36 month one taken in 2009, I got a cheap little nokia.....apply that to the rule.

If the network gave you a phone that was not suitably durable for the services for which it was supplied, then the network would be liable to repair or replace it. A consumer would expect the network to supply goods that are suitable for the purpose for which they are to be used, including the contracted term of the services.