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

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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

No, the more common scenario, especially in these forums, is suppliers who incorrectly dispute that they have any liability after the manufacturer's warranty has expired, rather than disputing that the goods are defective.

Guys_Dad

NFH wrote: »

No, the more common scenario, especially in these forums, is suppliers who incorrectly dispute that they have any liability after the manufacturer's warranty has expired, rather than disputing that the goods are defective.

ha/ir ha/ir

NFH

Guys_Dad wrote: »

ha/ir ha/ir

No it's not splitting hairs. If, as happens more often, the supplier totally disputes their liability, claiming incorrectly that the (expired) warranty is all that counts, then that can be easily remedied by referring them to the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (or to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for goods not sold in conjunction with a service). The much less common scenario is that the supplier disputes that there was a fault at the time of supply; it is only in this latter scenario that the consumer has to obtain an expert report (at the supplier's ultimate expense) to prove that the defect was not caused by the consumer.

Guys_Dad

We are not in disagreement at all and you are accurate in what you are posting.

What I was trying to do was to respond to the OP question about whether a handset should last at least as long as the contract.

My point was "Yes" but after 6 months the consumer has to show it was not their fault that the handset ceased, that it required technical diagnosis to check what went wrong and that was usually beyond customers' skill levels. It seems that either the suppliers or manufacturers often reject claims blaming on customer damage, often water damage.