Screen protector failed.

sjrw123

Bought a tempered glass screen protector less than three months ago from Amazon to protect a screen (iPhone 7). The advertising showed a picture of a 6kg ball dropped onto the screen and not cracking it.
The screen protector was to protect my daughter in law's phone. She dropped it from approx 60cm (2ft) and the protector is still in one piece but shattered. More importantly the phone screen is cracked.
I have read the reviews for this and other items and they all say that even when the protector broke, the phone was safe.
Amazon originally said that as it was outside the returns window, so tough.
I argued. The supervisor said they could give me a free replacement.
I want them (contract is with Amazon, not a third party seller.) to pay for the repair. My son had the other one (2 pack) and his is fine. The broken one must have been substandard.
They seem to be refusing to budge, what can I do?
My view is, screen protector should protect the screen. Lifetime warranty, so they obviously expect it to. Picture of 6kg weight falling onto screen with no damage which makes me think a 60cm drop shouldn't even scratch it. My daughter in Law has a new iPhone 7 with a damaged screen less than three months after protecting it with a tempered glass protector.
HELP.

Jon_01

I very much doubt you'll get anywhere. No company will usually accept a claim for consequential loss.

sjrw123

Not sure about that. I found this...


Consequential losses are losses that are not the natural result of the breach in the usual course of things, but are likely to arise from a special circumstance of the case. These are only recoverable as damages for breach of contract if the paying party knew or should have known of the special circumstance when it made the contract (the second limb of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70). For example the loss of telephone orders because a new telephone system does not work rather than the cost of the telephone system itself. A party may be able to claim for such losses if they were a likely result of the breach.


If a screen protector fails then a screen will become broken. It is a direct result of the breach, therefore, I would argue, it is not a simple consequential loss.


Any thoughts?

[Deleted User]

I think you're going to struggle with this one.

No screen protector makes a phone indestructible and no manufacturer claims that it does.

All the protector will do is limit the damage done if the phone is dropped etc.

It's also likely that it was not just this impact which caused the damage, but the cumulative effect of several similar ones

If you are determined to pursue this, you'll first have to arrange and pay for an independent inspection of the protector to try and determine if this was an inherent fault. Only if there is indeed such a fault will you receive a refund and the cost of this report. Even then, I wouldn't expect Amazon to accept any claim for consequential loss and you'd have to then start legal proceedings.

In the circumstances, I'd say Amazon's offer of a new protector is generous and far more than they are legally required to provide..

pmduk

sjrw123 wrote: »

Any thoughts?

Yes, you're onto a loser. 19th-century case law can hardly be relied upon for a 21st-century issue. The image on the pack indicates only protection from direct impact against the screen. The phone in question may have hit the floor bezel first giving a whole different set of impact forces that the screen protector is not designed to protect against.

Jon_01

sjrw123 wrote: »

Not sure about that. I found this...


Consequential losses are losses that are not the natural result of the breach in the usual course of things, but are likely to arise from a special circumstance of the case. These are only recoverable as damages for breach of contract if the paying party knew or should have known of the special circumstance when it made the contract (the second limb of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch J70). For example the loss of telephone orders because a new telephone system does not work rather than the cost of the telephone system itself. A party may be able to claim for such losses if they were a likely result of the breach.


If a screen protector fails then a screen will become broken. It is a direct result of the breach, therefore, I would argue, it is not a simple consequential loss.


Any thoughts?

I think you'll find if that was the case no one would make a screen protector at all, as any failure would leave the manufacturer liable for any resulting damage.

In the end it's up to you how to move forwards with this. But I feel you'd be wasting your time and money...

sjrw123

Thanks for all the replies, even though they're not what I wanted to hear. I think I'll have to go with you all on this one and save myself an early heart attack. I'm glad I asked on here before committing myself.