My property broken in a store - advice please

Rex_Mundi

OP to judge.........."I tried my phone in a few different machines around the shop to see if my phone worked with them. One machine said my phone was incompatible despite despite the brocher. I put it in another machine and it broke my phone"

Judge to OP..............."Can you prove that one of the machines in the shop caused the fault?"

OP to Judge.........."an engineer said the mainboard is faulty and wants £150 to repair the phone"

Judge to OP..............."Can you prove that one of the machines in the shop caused the fault?"

OP to Judge............"the phone was fine till I tried it in the shop on their machines.......this was too much of a coincidence"

Judge to OP..............."Can you prove that one of the machines in the shop caused the fault?"

.............................................

I think in court you would lose. You say you are an engineer and understand how problems can't be replicated. Then you would understand how hard it would be to prove your phone didn't cause their docking station to break because of your phone.

Googlewhacker

Flyboy152 wrote: »

The OP wrote:






One does not have to have a contract to claim compensation. However, the store has a duty of care to ensure that their equipment they are expecting their customers to use will not cause any damage.

Yes but its proving that there equipment caused the problem. The odds are it wasn't their equipment unless other customers iphones got damaged as other customers would have used it without any problems

Flyboy152

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Yes but its proving that there equipment caused the problem. The odds are it wasn't their equipment unless other customers iphones got damaged as other customers would have used it without any problems

And there lies the rub. But I wouldn't necessarily agree that, on the balance of probabilities, it was anything less than just a coincidence. However, the important thing is to get an engineer's report.

piglet25

I recall a 'coincidence' of my own a few years back - I was driving my diesel car through a flooded road and the blighter dropped dead in the middle of the flooded area! Darn water I thought! Insurance company sent it to rover specialists and low and behold there was not a drop of water in there, apparently my car just decided to die for no reason whatsoever at the exact time it was in approx 18" of water ( lowered suspension, didn't know how deep the water actually was either ), and the insurance company decided that !!!!!! happens and told me they weren't paying out, so I lost my beloved pride and joy
So to summerise, while it maybe blatently obvious whats happened, you can forget any sort of compensation or repair because theres always a tiny chance it could have happened anyway!

Flyboy152

piglet25 wrote: »

I recall a 'coincidence' of my own a few years back - I was driving my diesel car through a flooded road and the blighter dropped dead in the middle of the flooded area! Darn water I thought! Insurance company sent it to rover specialists and low and behold there was not a drop of water in there, apparently my car just decided to die for no reason whatsoever at the exact time it was in approx 18" of water ( lowered suspension, didn't know how deep the water actually was either ), and the insurance company decided that !!!!!! happens and told me they weren't paying out, so I lost my beloved pride and joy
So to summerise, while it maybe blatently obvious whats happened, you can forget any sort of compensation or repair because theres always a tiny chance it could have happened anyway!

Of course you are absolutely correct, but a courtroom is not an insurance claims department. They tend to use the balance of probabilities, rather than the balance profit and loss, as the main force behind making decisions.

tomjonesrules

Flyboy152 wrote: »

No it wasn't, it was silly remark, not anything to do with the OP's issue.

It wasn't actually a remark, it was a question (you do know the difference I assume?), and one that the OP has failed to answer. Why do you think that is?

(That's a question too by the way - those pesky question marks eh!).

vicmorrow

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Of course you are absolutely correct, but a courtroom is not an insurance claims department. They tend to use the balance of probabilities, rather than the balance profit and loss, as the main force behind making decisions.

So the balance of probabilities is that the docking station isn't what caused the problem or there would be 100s of people complaining?