Samsung S3 Mini Cracked Screen - Unfit for Purpose

jacques_chirac

Fosterdog wrote: »

If anything it weakens your argument. The toughened gorilla glass is designed to take more of a bashing than just scratch resistant.

A valid point - my reading glasses are 'scratch resistant', I would not dream of putting them in my bag without them being in a case.

stebiz

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Thank goodness, you have finally accepted that the S3 and the S3 mini are not the same build!

No, it does not strengthen your argument, but it does reiterate the fact that the S3 is irrelevant to your case. The mini has a lower quality glass because it is a lower quality phone, as reflected in the price.

A mobile phone should not be placed in a bag that contains items that may scratch it unless it has additional protection, something like this.

Okay so we are back to 'fit for purpose'. Are you saying if I bought for example a toy from Poundland, because I only paid a £1 it should only last a couple of weeks? or should I tell my son to be especially careful because it is a cheap toy.

Sorry for being pedantic but it's a worthwhile exercise debating the issue as that is only what I'll be doing in court - on the off chance it does, chances are they'll cave in tomorrow but who knows?

stebiz

jacques_chirac wrote: »

A valid point - my reading glasses are 'scratch resistant', I would not dream of putting them in my bag without them being in a case.

I can't agree. It's like saying you have a 50m water resistant watch but you daren't take it into the shower.

stebiz

wealdroam wrote: »

It only strengthens your case if you can somehow convince them that you were told it had gorilla glass.

Fair point. But I wasn't prior.

stebiz

Fosterdog wrote: »

If anything it weakens your argument. The toughened gorilla glass is designed to take more of a bashing than just scratch resistant.

Can I ask you a question. If you had a tv and your toddler was heavy handed with the on/off button would you say the manufacturer was at fault if it broke or your toddler?

Fosterdog

stebiz wrote: »

I can't agree. It's like saying you have a 50m water resistant watch but you daren't take it into the shower.

No it's more like having a non-waterproof watch and complaining when it stops working after you wore it in the shower.

The phone isn't a toughened and hardwearing phone so needs to be taken care of and not just shoved in a handbag with other things bashing against it.

Fosterdog

stebiz wrote: »

Can I ask you a question. If you had a tv and your toddler was heavy handed with the on/off button would you say the manufacturer was at fault if it broke or your toddler?

I would say I was at fault for allowing my toddler to get at the TV and cause the damage. There is no way it could be the manufacturers fault if I let a child break something

stebiz

jacques_chirac wrote: »

A mobile phone should not be placed in a bag that contains items that may scratch it unless it has additional protection, something like this.

Reading the reviews the case itself causes more problems (including cracking screens) than it merits. That's if you take 15% of purchases giving it 1 *

stebiz

Fosterdog wrote: »

I would say I was at fault for allowing my toddler to get at the TV and cause the damage. There is no way it could be the manufacturers fault if I let a child break something

So you wouldn't claim off your manufacturers warranty? I take it you've never had kids?

Fosterdog

stebiz wrote: »

So you wouldn't claim off your manufacturers warranty? I take it you've never had kids?

Actually no sadly I am unable to have children, however that doesn't mean I don't know about children. I have four step children and am a qualified childcare and education worker and a play worker, plus I have a large extended family that I regularly babysit for along with friends' children.

I have more than enough experience to be 100% certain that it would not be the manufacturers fault if a child broke something.

Maybe I should let my stepson throw stones at a window, then claim from the manufacturer when the window smashes. It is no different to what you are suggesting.