Iphone 4 not working and out of warranty - what are my rights?

NFH

romedk wrote: »

So what you are saying is that 3 and NOT Apple are responsible for rectifying the problem. Is that right?

Yes, the supplier is liable, not the manufacturer. The warranty was in addition to, and does not replace, your statutory rights under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

romedk wrote: »

Is this still the case if I only paid £180 for the phone on a contract basis as opposed to buying it outright for £600?

Yes, but because the goods were supplied at a reduced price (on condition of a related service contract) as opposed to sold at full price, it is important to remember that the supply of the goods is governed by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and not the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

romedk wrote: »

Lastly what about if they say it's faulty because it was dropped? Are you saying under the SOGA that the item should be durable enough not to break if its in a fully protective case?

You could argue that under Section 18(3)(e) of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the goods must be sufficiently durable for the purpose for which they were supplied. You could also cite the manufacturer's claims concerning resilience to impacts. I believe such statements were made with regard to the glass etc, but I may be wrong so you need to check.

gjchester

romedk wrote: »

Are you saying that because it has been dropped the SOGA no longer applies? Should the iphone not be durable enough to last a few knocks if it is fully protected in a hard leather case as mine is?

Goods have to be "sufficently durable" but there is no further comment on what that entails.

You'd need to prove that the phone was not durable enough and that any damaged wa ssoly down to a design or manufacture flaw and not any user damage.

mj132

Don't know about your legal rights but if you go into Apple and say the battery is draining loads and you've restored it,updated software, backed up etc they'll give you the option to do a swap for £50 under a battery replacement program, better then £139. If not next step would be your insurance or contents insurance in your house?

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

The contract for the supply of the phone and the supply of the service are seperate legal entities. Three clearly state this in their terms

Three can't over ride your rights but the airtime service contract is not related to the supply of goods.

It is irrelevant whether Three states in its T&Cs that the supply of the goods and services are separate, because the two are clearly interdependent for many reasons, e.g. price paid, SIM-locking, purpose for which the goods were supplied. If T&Cs conflict with the truth, then the truth will prevail.

timberflake

The SOG act only applies if you can prove that the fault is caused due to an inherant fault with the product (in other words it's a common fault with a lot of iPhone 4's).

The statement that you didn't know there was only a 12 month Apple warrantey doesn't really hold water as ignorance is no defence, you should have checked before entering into a lengthy contract.

You could try appealing to 3's good nature, but I doubt it would work. It sounds like you microphone could be faulty, hence why people can't hear you. I used http://www.i-phone-repairs.co.uk/ recently and found them good, a faulty microphone is £30, or you can send it in for diagnositcs.

NFH

timberflake wrote: »

The SOG act only applies if you can prove that the fault is caused due to an inherant fault with the product (in other words it's a common fault with a lot of iPhone 4's).

The statement that you didn't know there was only a 12 month Apple warrantey doesn't really hold water as ignorance is no defence, you should have checked before entering into a lengthy contract.

Aboslute rubbish! Drivel like this only perpetuates the myths about consumer rights against which consumers are constantly having to fight.

As already stated, the Sale of Goods Act is not relevavnt here, but the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. With either legislation, the fault does not have to be a common fault but the OP might have to get an independent report carried out to confirm that the defect was not caused by wear and tear etc, but this is necessary only if the supplier disputes the cause of the fault.

It makes no difference whether the OP was aware of the warranty or not. As already stated, the warranty was in addition to, and did not replace, the OP's statutory rights.

oopsadaisydoddle

I thought that OP would need to prove the fault was there at time of manufacture. It seems that his supplier is disputing this therefore he will likely need to get said independent report to confirm this fault is not as a result of wear and tear or indeed dropping.

I work in the insurance dept of a phone company and we get a lot of iPhones being replace because of being dropped and damage caused so it is very possible that this may have been the cause of OP's problems.

NFH

oopsadaisydoddle wrote: »

I thought that OP would need to prove the fault was there at time of manufacture.

Absolutely correct. The OP needs to prove that the goods were not durable at the time of delivery.

spiro

NFH wrote: »

Absolutely correct. The OP needs to prove that the goods were not durable at the time of delivery.

Surely therein lies your problem.

NFH

spiro wrote: »

Surely therein lies your problem.

Indeed. If Three claims that the defect was caused by the impact that made the scratch rather than because of a component that was not durable at the time of supply, then the OP can get an independent report carried out to establish this. The cost of the report would be borne by Three if the report finds in the OP's favour.