Apple UK's Christmas returns policy - extension until 7th January

NFH

Apple UK's usual returns policy slightly exceeds its obligations under the Distance Selling Regulations by allowing products to be returned until 14 days after delivery. This policy was extended even further until 07/01/2013 for any items delivered between 27/10/2012 and 25/12/2012 with the following exception:

"This holiday return policy does not apply to iPhone or wireless service contracts."

How would a typical consumer interpret this specific term? It can mean one of the following:

1. This holiday return policy does not apply to iPhone service contracts or wireless service contracts.
2. This holiday return policy does not apply to iPhones or to wireless service contracts.

The following points are potentially relevant:

• Apple does sell iPhone service contracts.
• "iPhone" is in the singular and "contracts" is in the plural. If both are separate indirect objects of the same verb, there is no reason for one to be singular and the other to be plural, as they are both count nouns.
• Apple does refer to iPhones in the plural on its web site in many places, e.g. "Compare iPhones" at http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/compare-iphones/
• While there are obvious reasons to exclude service contracts, both iPhone and wireless, from the extended returns policy, there is no obvious commercial reason for iPhone products to be excluded.

NFH

Can nobody offer an opinion on this? Just answer 1 or 2 from the above list.

Littlemiss27

I'd say option 1.

Apple are normally pretty good with their returns policies, and the only reason I can think of for this restriction is the networks refusing to extend the cancellation period for the service contracts.

NFH

The reason I'm asking is that Apple are refusing to refund 3 iPhones that I bought from them which were delivered during the above period, stating that interpretation 2 above applies.

I ordered them for a friend who was going to sell them abroad at a large profit, but for a number of reasons he didn't sell them. I was therefore going to return them within 14 days, but in light of the extended returns policy, I decided to hold on to them to sell in the UK (even at cost), just so I would keep the airmiles I had received from buying them on my credit card. Because of the potential ambiguity in the T&Cs, I phoned Apple's sales department, who confirmed that interpretation 1 above applied. They stated this without even reading the T&Cs, as they knew it was their policy that iPhones could be returned until 07/01/2013.

My guess is that, although Apple originally intended interpretation 1 to apply, because of declining iPhone 5 sales, they later decided to adopt interpretation 2.

There are a number of factors in my favour:

• Under English law, any ambiguity in T&Cs generally falls in the consumer's favour (confirmed by my solicitor).
• I bought the iPhones on a credit card so I can do a Section 75 claim.
• Apple cannot explain why "iPhone" is in the singular but "contracts" is in the plural, when they claim to have intended both to be semantically plural.
• If they intended interpretation 2 to apply, Apple could have phrased it non-ambiguously in several other ways, for example:
  • "to iPhones or to wireless service contracts"
  • "to wireless service contracts or iPhones"
  • "to iPhone products or wireless service contracts"

Although I've had legal advice already, any additional information to support my position would be appreciated.

NFH

Just an update on the outcome. Apple refused to budge, so I raised a dispute with American Express. The strongest legal argument was the Contra Proferentem rule which means that any ambiguity in a contract is always interpreted against the author of the contract. American Express agreed with me and charged the amount back to Apple, backdated to the original transaction dates.

A further development is that Apple have still failed to arrange collection of the iPhones, despite having responded to me that they would do so. Therefore I have both my money back and the iPhones. After taking further legal advice, the only option to me is to send a recorded letter to Apple requesting them to collect them. If they fail to respond, I can then sell them using reasonable means in accordance with Section 12 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

chanz4

They are not yours to sell, and apple can easily blacklist them which then leaves you in a sticky position

NFH

chanz4 wrote: »

They are not yours to sell

Did you bother to read the relevant legislation I quoted above? Subsection 3 states clearly:

If the bailee—
(a)has in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1 to this Act given notice to the bailor of his intention to sell the goods under this subsection, or
(b)has failed to trace or communicate with the bailor with a view to giving him such a notice, after having taken reasonable steps for the purpose,
and is reasonably satisfied that the bailor owns the goods, he shall be entitled, as against the bailor, to sell the goods.

chanz4

Isnt it your responsability to return the goods, as per you credit card refunding you....

NFH

chanz4 wrote: »

Isnt it your responsability to return the goods, as per you credit card refunding you....

Not at my expense, no. This is stated clearly in the refund policy which forms part of the contract of sale. The onus is on Apple to arrange collection, which they agreed to do.

d123

And in terms of sec 5, you will then owe Apple the proceeds (less your costs to sell them)

(5)A bailee exercising his powers under subsection (3) shall be liable to account to the bailor for the proceeds of sale, less any costs of sale, and—
(a)the account shall be taken on the footing that the bailee should have adopted the best method of sale reasonably available in the circumstances, and
(b)where subsection (3)(a) applies, any sum payable in respect of the goods by the bailor to the bailee which accrued due before the bailee gave notice of intention to sell the goods shall be deductible from the proceeds of sale.

NFH

d123 wrote: »

And in terms of sec 5, you will then owe Apple the proceeds (less your costs to sell them)

True, but only if or when they ask for the money.