EE refusing to repair

naedanger

maria41 wrote: »

I am just trying to understand their warranty conditions as it seems unfair on the consumer to me. if a product is still usable and damage to the product has not caused the fault why should they not be liable for the fault in the product. i appreciate that pre damage could be made worse, however they would be able, im sure to place a clause in an agreement regarding this.

Wealdrom has covered the warranty position.

Under your statutory rights my understanding is the retailer has a legal obligation to make good inherent faults (i.e. those that existed at the time of purchase). I do not think the retailer could deny this liability because of other faults caused by the consumer assuming those faults did not exacerbate the inherent fault nor make the inherent fault more difficult to make good.

(So, using a hypothetical example, if your tv screen exploded due to an inherent fault I do not believe a retailer could refuse to fix it because you had also, independently, bashed the case. However it may make it harder for you to win your case as the retailer might argue e.g. that the events were connected or that the bashed case made it difficult to repair the tv.)