Should mobile phones be fault-free for the duration of the contract?

solomanga

QUICK SURVEY!!

I am considering purchasing an Iphone, but am concerned about reliability (mates have told me about handsets piling-in three weeks outside the warranty). Having read Martin's guide on the sales of goods act, i'd like to conduct a quick poll requiring a 'yes' or 'no' answer, involving you all:

Do you think it reasonable for a handset to remain fault-free for the duration of the accompanying contract?

(I intend to use this survey as ammo if the afore-mentioned handset fails)

Thank you!

Sol.

poshparrot

Although i'd love to say yes, I think that a year's warranty for a mobile phone is perfectly reasonable, so my answer is no.

Thing is, if you use this as amo then the manufacturer or mobile network will come back with something like 'should have bought extended warranty/insurance' or something along those lines.

powerful_Rogue

Dont know about other networks, but T-mobile offer a warranty to match the contract as standard, except for iphones.

But yes, I think its reasonable to expect a mobile phone supplied on a 18/24 month contract to last the duration of the contract.

grumbler

poshparrot wrote: »

Although i'd love to say yes, I think that a year's warranty for a mobile phone is perfectly reasonable, .

Do you really think that it is normal for a £500 device to break after 12 months?
Do you think that Samsung, HTC, Sony and Nokia are unreasonably generous when offering 24 months?

NFH

solomanga wrote: »

Do you think it reasonable for a handset to remain fault-free for the duration of the accompanying contract?

Yes, and a court's opinion would be the same, in view of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. If the goods are supplied for use with the service and both are marketed simultaneously as a package, then the consumer has a reasonable expectation that the goods will be sufficiently durable to last for the length of the related contract for service.

poshparrot

grumbler wrote: »

Do you really think that it is normal for a £500 device to break after 12 months?
Do you think that Samsung, HTC, Sony and Nokia are unreasonably generous when offering 24 months?

ive misinterpreted the question :wall::wall:

I do think that its reasonable for a handset to remain fault free for the duration of a contract.

Guys_Dad

Any electrical device costing £200 upwards should have a guarantee for 24 months fair use.

Having said that, the Guardian ran an article that contained the following
"However, SOGA provides cover for goods bought for up to six years – in England and Wales. This means if a TV fails after 13 months, you still have rights. Assuming the item has failed through no fault of yours, and it was "reasonable" to expect it to last longer – given its cost/quality – you should demand, under the Sale of Goods Act, that it be replaced or repaired by the retailed, not the manufacturer. Once the item is six months old, the onus is on you, the consumer, to show the item failed as a result of a manufacturing fault."

The problem, of course, is proving a fault in design or manufacture rather than mis-use.

Personally, knowing that handsets do tend to have relatively hard lives and seemingly poorer manufacturing control, I would never spend money on an expensive handset for my communications needs.

NFH

poshparrot wrote: »

Although i'd love to say yes, I think that a year's warranty for a mobile phone is perfectly reasonable, so my answer is no.

A warranty is in addition to, and does not diminish, one's statutory rights. A shorter manufacturer's warranty does not override the six years allowed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. A consumer has a right under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 if the goods do not last for the duration of the related service contract. Furthermore, the goods may reasonably be expected to last for much longer depending on the price paid in accordance with Section 4(2A), as Grumbler correctly pointed out.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

A warranty is in addition to, and does not diminish, one's statutory rights. A shorter manufacturer's warranty does not override the six years allowed by Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. A consumer has a right under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 if the goods do not last for the duration of the related service contract. Furthermore, the goods may reasonably be expected to last for much longer depending on the price paid in accordance with Section 4(2A), as Grumbler correctly pointed out.

I would not argue with you there. But after 6 months, as you are aware, the onus is on the consumer to prove fault with the goods and that the fault was not caused by consumer misuse.

Because of the micro-technology, most of us can not do that without expert help and it has been my complaint over the years that too many complaints are fobbed off with "water damage" which seems to cover any fault whatsoever!

So, having law on your side may be one thing, but the practicalities are that you have a damned hard job at times calling on that law to protect you.

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I would not argue with you there. But after 6 months, as you are aware, the onus is on the consumer to prove fault with the goods and that the fault was not caused by consumer misuse.

The onus is on the consumer after six months only if the supplier disputes that the goods had a durability defect at the time of supply. Many suppliers want to avoid the cost of an expert report and fulfil their obligations under Section 11N before an expert report or court action.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

The onus is on the consumer after six months only if the supplier disputes that the goods had a durability defect at the time of supply. Many suppliers want to avoid the cost of an expert report and fulfil their obligations under Section 11N before an expert report or court action.

There are enough who do dispute it to fill this forum over the years. In fact, if not, why this thread???