Damaged Iphone 4 on 3 Network

Buzby

NFH wrote: »

Not true. Because Three supplied the goods for use with the service, a consumer has a reasonable expectation that the goods will last at least for the duration of the service contract, i.e. 24 months. The OP should request a free repair or refund under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

And you base this on....? Supposition?
The phone is simply an inducement - nothing more. SOGA will not apply either if the consumer made to payment for it, this is not untested waters, and you appear to wish to start the debate from scratch. But nothing has changed, and if the goods pack up after 7 days, the contract continues unmodified and the consumer liable.

NFH

thegoodman wrote: »

Not true. Your service contract is for the SIM - and providing this is working (and would provide a connection if placed in a different handset) then it is your responsibility to supply a working replacement. The handset was an 'inducement' to sign up not as a 24 month rental.

Incorrect. The goods were transferred by the supplier to the consumer as described in Section 1 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. This legislation applies because the supplier supplies the goods and service simultaneously with the intention that they be used in conjunction with each other and it is also relevant that the price of the goods and services are interdependent. The law recognises that goods are often supplied with no up-front fee on condition of buying a service, and this is one reason that the supply of goods is covered by legislation that primarily covers the supply of services.

thegoodman wrote: »

This is how network and mobile phone companies get away with 12 months warranty.

If this was not the case then it would be illegal to sell phones with 12 months warranty.

The warranty is in addition to, and does not affect, the consumer's statutory rights. Therefore even after the warranty has expired, the consumer continues to have statutory rights. A supplier is at liberty to provide additional rights, e.g. warranty, which is of course not illegal.

Buzby wrote: »

And you base this on....? Supposition?

Professional legal advice from solicitors who specialise in consumer legislation. Where do you get your opinion from?

Buzby wrote: »

The phone is simply an inducement - nothing more. SOGA will not apply either if the consumer made to payment for it

As explained above, the phone is not an inducement, but forms part of the overall agreement, regardless of whether that agreement is divided into separate sub-contracts for goods and services. You are correct that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 does not apply; the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 applies instead.

I'm fed up with people posting incorrect legal drivel in this forum about statutory rights for goods supplied with a service. The legislation is very clear on this. Please check with a solicitor before refuting the correct answer.

real1314

Buzby wrote: »

And you base this on....? Supposition?
The phone is simply an inducement - nothing more. SOGA will not apply either if the consumer made to payment for it, this is not untested waters, and you appear to wish to start the debate from scratch. But nothing has changed, and if the goods pack up after 7 days, the contract continues unmodified and the consumer liable.

There's a consumer rights guide on this site. You need to read it before you post again. Try "Do I have rights if a freebie was faulty?"
:cool: