Sale of Goods act vs Vodafone

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

Again thats your opinion until a Judge makes a decision it's all assumption on everyones part, even soliciters.

If it's that clear cut who are there not lots of cases where people take that course of actions.

It's not my opinion, but the law to which I have posted links for you to read in black and white. You seem to disagree with what the law says but you are unable to cite any legislation that supports your misguided point of view.

d123

eefee wrote: »

You could have warned me about this Falko, just tried to restore it back to iOS5 and got this message-

"The iPhone could not be restored. This device isn't eligible for the requested build"

A warning would have been nice. Thanks a lot

I'm sure the only phone that Apple allow to be downgraded from ios 5 is the older iPhone 3G.

Perhaps Falko confused the 3GS with the 3G when he gave his advice.

gjchester

NFH wrote: »

It's not my opinion, but the law to which I have posted links for you to read in black and white. You seem to disagree with what the law says but you are unable to cite any legislation that supports your misguided point of view.

I agree that is the law, what I disagree on is if the phone is or is not part of the service. The part is where the grey area comes in, networks get round it with two contracts one for supply of goods, one for airtime.

That has never been tested either way in law as far as I know, and thats the issue, does it comes under SOGA or SOGAS act?

NFH

gjchester wrote: »

That has never been tested either way in law as far as I know, and thats the issue, does it comes under SOGA or SOGAS act?

What makes you think that this has never been tested by a court? Millions of mobile phones are supplied on condition of the purchase of a related service contract. Just because you don't know about any court cases, it doesn't mean there haven't been any. In any case, I expect that suppliers usually give in before it gets to court, because they know they wouldn't win. Nothing in a supplier's T&Cs can take precedence over fact (i.e. the way the phones are marketed and conditionally supplied) or the relevant legislation.

thegoodman

Looking at the BBC website it seem the phones come under Sales of Goods Act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/271493.stm
Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended with Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994)
Goods must fit the description used in any advert, label, or packaging etc that relates to them - such as the year or make, type, colour, size or materials used. These must be accurate. The goods must also be of satisfactory quality - and should be fit for their purpose.
The retailer has a legal obligation to sort out your problem if the goods do not meet these requirements, as long as you act within a 'reasonable time'; the catch is that this period is not defined - it could be as little as a few days depending on the goods. If you complain after this period, you cannot reject the goods and get a full refund, but you are entitled to compensation for faulty goods - normally the cost of repair.

Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (amended by Supply of Goods and Services Act 1994)
This states that work covered by the contract - which exists as soon as you ask someone to carry out some work for you, such as plumbing, dry cleaning, or building, must be carried out with reasonable skill and care, within a reasonable time, and for a reasonable price (if that's not stated) - but what is reasonable is not defined by law.
If something goes wrong as a result of the work done - ask the contractor to put the work right, and if s/he won't, you are legally entitled to employ another contractor to rectify the problem and claim the costs from the original contractor.

No wonder many companies are trying to get away from warranty work. We need simple system eg two year warranty.

NFH

thegoodman wrote: »

Looking at the BBC website it seem the phones come under Sales of Goods Act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/271493.stm

Sorry to be blunt, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Goods that are supplied in the course of a service come under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. A good example is a kitchen fitter, whereby the fitter is liable for any goods supplied and installed by him into the kitchen. The same principle applies to a mobile phone contract because the goods are clearly provided for use with the service and are simultaneously marketed with interdependent prices.

Instead of arguing about it in this thread, ask a solicitor. I've done so; you should too.

drbesty

Jeez just pay to have the phone replaced, is it really worth your time for the sake of a few quid? Things go wrong, that's why people have insurance

eefee

drbesty wrote: »

Jeez just pay to have the phone replaced, is it really worth your time for the sake of a few quid? Things go wrong, that's why people have insurance

Will Apple still replace the phone for £120 now I've tried to downgrade to iOS 4.1?

NFH

drbesty wrote: »

Jeez just pay to have the phone replaced, is it really worth your time for the sake of a few quid? Things go wrong, that's why people have insurance

Incorrect. Insurance is for where the liable party is oneself (e.g. accidental damage) or where the liable party can't be made to pay (e.g. theft). We have strong consumer protection legislation in the UK, so that people like the OP cannot be walked all over by large companies. To pay for a repair is what a weak-minded and ill-advised consumer would do. Don't encourage the OP to give up his consumer rights; he is doing the right thing.

falko89

d123 wrote: »

I'm sure the only phone that Apple allow to be downgraded from ios 5 is the older iPhone 3G.

Perhaps Falko confused the 3GS with the 3G when he gave his advice.

Nope Apple are still signing 4.1 for 3GS it can be downgraded. Here is another way of doing it. Also applied to iOS5

http://www.beijingiphonerepair.com/hack/downgrade-iphone-3gs-on-ios-4-3-4-or-ios-4-3-5-to-ios-4-1-without-shsh-blobs-for-untethered-jailbreak/