Samsung Mini Phone - Rights!

Gillyx

I have the S3, I had it 4 days and had hairline cracks like this, in an official Samsung Case. I took it back to Carphone Warehouse and was not happy, they replaced but I think this is very unusual for them to do so.

stebiz

Gillyx wrote: »

I have the S3, I had it 4 days and had hairline cracks like this, in an official Samsung Case. I took it back to Carphone Warehouse and was not happy, they replaced but I think this is very unusual for them to do so.

Thanks Gilly

Fosterdog

I said my OH is not so careful with phones, his current phone is the S3 and yes he has a cracked screen, luckily over the bezel area so doesn't affect him using it. His cracked when he dropped it on concrete.

He is always dropping his, it's fallen down the stairs at least twice, dropped on our laminate flooring almost daily and just throws it into the centre console in the car. Yet it still only has the one crack so it can't be a design fault just bad luck that the one impact caused the one crack. If anything this phone has survived better than his three previous phones and is almost two years old and still just one crack.

Hintza

stebiz wrote: »

I will get a report done and take through the small claims.

This would be interesting. If they decided to defend it I think you would have absolutely no chance. The amount of firepower they would throw at would be huge.

Having said that you could win because the decided it was better not to even bother turning up.

Personally although I tend to agree with you to a point but they are only doing what the market dictates by way of design etc. I have been trying to come up with an analogy the best one I can think of is a thermos flask. If you drop it, it smashes but it wouldn't be described as "not fit for purpose".

In the meantime you might want to try the LG G Flex which is about to be launched.

arsenalboy

Stebiz, I would imagine that Samsung would not want this to go to the small claims court because if you won it would create a precedent.

However, I think under SOGA it is the retailer and not Samsung who you would have to proceed against.

Good luck.

Retrogamer

Older mobile phones without touchscreens usually used plastic over the glass to protect it.

Most modern touchscreen smart phones now use Gorilla Glass so that it's thin enough to keep the screen sensitive to the touch, but still very durable against damage.

The S3 mini is a touchscreen so the glass needs to be thin to keep it responsive, but as it's a cut down version of the S3 it doesn't come with Gorilla Glass so it is fragile against impacts from solid objects.

They don't usually spontaniously crack when people are using them with their fingers or when sitting on a table or in on display so i think Samsung will claim it has cracked due to it coming into contact with a solid object. Something that will be hard to defend against.

mattyprice4004

arsenalboy wrote: »

Stebiz, I would imagine that Samsung would not want this to go to the small claims court because if you won it would create a precedent.

However, I think under SOGA it is the retailer and not Samsung who you would have to proceed against.

Good luck.

As far as I know, you can't set a precedent in the small claims court.

arsenalboy

mattyprice4004 wrote: »

As far as I know, you can't set a precedent in the small claims court.

You are quite right, a precedent can only be applied from a ruling from a superior court and not one on the same structural level. Therefore, the decision of the Small Claims Court (normally County Court) is not binding on other small claims. However, the judge in his preparations, will look at similar situations.

However, having said all that for clarity, I was not referring to precedent in that sense, rather the other side of the coin.
Samsung would not want anything like this going to Court if they thought they would lose.
Internet forums are king and anybody in two minds as to whether to take action would be influenced if they knew others had been successful in similar situations.

Buzby

Samsung would not care either way. In addition to no precedent, they have the weight of numbers of global sales to support their contention there is no inferential fault.

As they would not be the person sued, the protection is complete.

It is true there are internal stresses within large screen sizes, but they need contributing factors to tip the balance and cause a fracture. As it will be the user who does this, the chance of success is limited.

I recall the biggest cause of damage is not dropping, but flexing (from a back pocket for example). Resulting in screen of bezel fracture. Since the action will cost £80 minimum (and more if you lose send pay capped costs) it may be better to go the official repair route.

mattyprice4004

arsenalboy wrote: »

You are quite right, a precedent can only be applied from a ruling from a superior court and not one on the same structural level. Therefore, the decision of the Small Claims Court (normally County Court) is not binding on other small claims. However, the judge in his preparations, will look at similar situations.

However, having said all that for clarity, I was not referring to precedent in that sense, rather the other side of the coin.
Samsung would not want anything like this going to Court if they thought they would lose.
Internet forums are king and anybody in two minds as to whether to take action would be influenced if they knew others had been successful in similar situations.

No worries - thanks for the clarification.