Sony Xperia Z3 cracked back

grumbler

You'll have to try hard to put all your weight on the phone when sitting.
So, what exactly force is acceptable and how this maximum force is allowed to be applied?
Re SoGA, it says about the fault, not damage that crack is. Of course, this damage can be caused by some fault in design, but I don't think that retailer has to prove that any damage wasn't caused by some fault.

And no, I don't blame you for damaging the phone. I am just being realistic and playing the Devil's (=CPW's) advocate.

Dreamnine

delvey wrote: »

Well for I know the crack could of been there on purchase. Now under the sales of goods act isn't it up to the retailer to prove otherwise?

You bought a phone instore from CPW without checking to see whether it was in mint condition? I don't get that.

Claim it on your insurance or face a lengthy (and quite possibly unsatisfactory) outcome from Sony.

grumbler

Dreamnine wrote: »

...Aren't you insured? That's the first thing I made sure of when I got my Z3 Compact.

Dreamnine wrote: »

...Claim it on your insurance...

You keep saying this like if everyone was supposed to have insurance. IMO all insurances are very poor value for money for the majority of people (careful people pay for reckless), that's why I have only the compulsory ones.

It's a personal choice really, not something definite.

Dreamnine

grumbler wrote: »

You keep saying this like if everyone was supposed to have insurance. IMO all insurances are very poor value for money for the majority of people (careful people pay for reckless), that's why I have only the compulsory ones.

It's a personal choice really, not something definite.

It's definite for me and a great number of people, especially where a £400 phone is concerned.

And if the OP had insurance then he needn't have posted.

delvey

Dreamnine wrote: »

You bought a phone instore from CPW without checking to see whether it was in mint condition? I don't get that.

I have never, nor know anyone who checks the phone in the store

Sisters phone turned up yesterday from CPW via DPD, box smashed to pieces and phone damaged. DPD would not have it that she could refuse delivery and there customer service was awful

delvey

Dreamnine wrote: »

It's definite for me and a great number of people, especially where a £400 phone is concerned.

And if the OP had insurance then he needn't have posted.

Why not, if something is damaged through no fault of my own then why should I claim through my insurance?
I shall be sending it to sony, carphone warehouse are useless

aye

I had exactly the same problem with my Z2. I had a crack running the length of the back glass. Took it into Carphone Warehouse and spoke with their Geek Squad, who sent it away to get fixed under warranty. Got it back in less than a week. I did contact Sony, and they wanted me to send it to them, but it would take over a month.

There’s certain types of cracks they fix under warranty. If it’s a single crack you will be fine, but multiple cracks/shatter and they won’t do it. You will need to pay. There’s example pictures online you can look at if you Google it.

ConsumerGuy0016

Dreamnine wrote: »

Just claim it on your insurance - accidental damage.

Dreamnine wrote: »

Aren't you insured? That's the first thing I made sure of when I got my Z3 Compact.

Dreamnine wrote: »

Claim it on your insurance or face a lengthy (and quite possibly unsatisfactory) outcome from Sony

Dreamnine wrote: »

And if the OP had insurance then he needn't have posted

We understood you the first time, love. You are/were extremely proud of yourself in obtaining phone insurance - if you understood the economics behind insurance however, you'd soon realise that 'value for money' when it comes to insurance is based on the utilities of a given individual in each state, across his/her 24 month contract.

These utilities vary based on whether you are risk averse, risk neutral or risk loving.

In your case, you're just annoying and should refrain from posting if you're not going to help the OP who had a legitimate question in which he didn't once ask about merits of purchasing insurance.

Dreamnine

ConsumerGuy0016 wrote: »

We understood you the first time, love. You are/were extremely proud of yourself in obtaining phone insurance - if you understood the economics behind insurance however, you'd soon realise that 'value for money' when it comes to insurance is based on the utilities of a given individual in each state, across his/her 24 month contract.

These utilities vary based on whether you are risk averse, risk neutral or risk loving.

In your case, you're just annoying and should refrain from posting if you're not going to help the OP who had a legitimate question in which he didn't once ask about merits of purchasing insurance.

I've posted here since August 2008 and shall continue if I want. I see you just joined. State? This is the UK.

And not having insurance for a £400 mobile phone is just dumb, Love.

ConsumerGuy0016

Dreamnine wrote: »

I've posted here since August 2008 and shall continue if I want. I see you just joined. State? This is the UK.

And not having insurance for a £400 mobile phone is just dumb, Love.

Definition of state:

"the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time."

:T

And for the last time (PM if you want more help on the matter) - it's not a case of saying "not getting insurance is dumb" or vice versa, it's about matching risk preference to the cost of insurance and equating discounted utilities.

I'm just saying this as someone who has a degree in this area, and not simply life experience in posting on MoneySavingExpert as yourself.