sale of goods act and a mobile contract

ktstu

Under the sale of good act should my mobile not be fixed by o2 as it has not lasted the 24 month contract it was taken out for?

Cycrow

the contract is for air time and is seperate to the mobile itself.

most mobiles will be under warranty for 24months

NFH

You're looking at the wrong legislation.

O2 has an obligation to repair or replace the phone free of charge under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 . It is immaterial that there is a separate written agreement for the supply of the goods and service, because:

• O2 supplied the goods with the intention that they be used with the service.
• The goods were supplied at the price paid on condition of entering into the contract for service.
• The goods are funded, either partially or fully, by the monthly charge for service.
• The goods were supplied at the same time that the service started.
• The goods and service were marketed as a package.

You are correct that the goods should last for at least as long as the minimum service contract, and in many cases for much longer. No court would deem a reasonable time to be less than the minimum service contract.

Herongull

According to Which?

If your phone forms part of the mobile phone contract:
"In addition to your mobile phone operator’s terms and conditions, you also have your statutory rights under the Supply of Goods and Services Act.
This means your mobile provider – in addition to providing their service to you with reasonable skill and care – has to ensure the actual handset is of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose."
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/problem/my-mobile-phone-is-faulty-what-can-i-do/

d123

NFH wrote: »

You're looking at the wrong legislation.

O2 has an obligation to repair or replace the phone free of charge under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 . It is immaterial that there is a separate written agreement for the supply of the goods and service, because:

• O2 supplied the goods with the intention that they be used with the service.

You've jumped the gun there, the OP hasnt said O2 were the retailer, they could have sourced the handset from another retailer.

NFH

d123 wrote: »

You've jumped the gun there, the OP hasnt said O2 were the retailer, they could have sourced the handset from another retailer.

It makes no difference if O2 wasn't the retailer. It is still liable because it provides the service in conjunction with which the goods were supplied. The above Which link explains this.

grumbler

I don't see how the link explains this. And it makes no sense to me that O2 can be liable for the handset supplied by a third party.

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

I don't see how the link explains this. And it makes no sense to me that O2 can be liable for the handset supplied by a third party.

It says "If your phone was bought as part of a contract, your claim would be against your mobile phone service provider and you may be entitled to a free repair or replacement". It doesn't state that you need to have bought the phone from the mobile phone service provider, only that it needs to have been bought in conjunction with a service contract.

It might help if you think about a contract where the phone has no up-front cost. Why should the third party be liable when the customer has paid nothing for the phone to the third party?

Herongull

I think the Which? advice actually refers to a situation where you have a contract phone supplied by the mobile company, not a 3rd party (eg a contract with vodafone/EE/O2 which included a "free" phone), although it should make this clearer.

I interpreted the OP's post to relate to that situation

Sparx

NFH wrote: »

You're looking at the wrong legislation.

O2 has an obligation to repair or replace the phone free of charge under Section 11N of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 . It is immaterial that there is a separate written agreement for the supply of the goods and service, because:

• O2 supplied the goods with the intention that they be used with the service.
• The goods were supplied at the price paid on condition of entering into the contract for service.
• The goods are funded, either partially or fully, by the monthly charge for service.
• The goods were supplied at the same time that the service started.
• The goods and service were marketed as a package.

You are correct that the goods should last for at least as long as the minimum service contract, and in many cases for much longer. No court would deem a reasonable time to be less than the minimum service contract.

Haha, funny you say that.. Just saw the new "O2 Refresh" advert on the TV, just read up on their website. I guess that is their sly way of getting round this with this new concept for mobile phone contracts..

Techhead_2

NFH wrote: »

It says "If your phone was bought as part of a contract, your claim would be against your mobile phone service provider and you may be entitled to a free repair or replacement". It doesn't state that you need to have bought the phone from the mobile phone service provider, only that it needs to have been bought in conjunction with a service contract.

It might help if you think about a contract where the phone has no up-front cost. Why should the third party be liable when the customer has paid nothing for the phone to the third party?

I don't think that you have interpreted the Which article properly.

Also, your example is flawed. When a third party sells a contract on behalf of a service provider; the third party receives a payment. The third party can then use that money towards subsidising a handset, or commission for staff or cashback for the customer, a free laptop etc etc

The retailer still has the same responsibility to the customer as if the customer had received the item free as part of a promotion with other goods.