Please help! Samsung D900i with cracked LCD

d123

thesaint wrote: »

Samsung D900's are well known from suffering from defective screens.

Google it.

Mainly because they are so thin people tend to slip them into jeans pockets, when you sit on the phone it will cause the pressure needed to crack the screen.

Cracked LCD will never be covered by a warranty, it invariably needs user damage or some form of external force to break.

thesaint

They won't cover it by warranty, but the consumer is covered by the 'Sale of goods act', a threat of court would sort it out.

elljay20

thesaint wrote: »

They won't cover it by warranty, but the consumer is covered by the 'Sale of goods act', a threat of court would sort it out.

not in my shop it wouldn't:p

Fiona11

Thank you all for your suggestions. I know my daughter has not accidentally damaged it, it is her pride and joy. When she takes it to school, it goes in the blazer breast pocket and it sits in one of those little phone socks you can buy to keep it safe.

The reason I asked for help, is because I googled it and it seems that it happens more than regularly on the Samsung D900i between 2 and 3 months. i know of someone who had the same problem and has trading standards on their side. i was just hoping not to have to take it that far.

thesaint

elljay20 wrote: »

not in my shop it wouldn't:p

Then we would be meeting up in court.

KeithP

Isn't there some legislation somewhere that if a fault develops in the first six months then it is up to the retailer to prove the goods weren't faulty at the time of sale. After six months it is the responsibility of the purchaser to provide this proof.

Yes, here it is...

Proving the fault

Generally, the buyer needs to demonstrate
the goods were faulty at the time of sale.
This is so if he chooses to request an
immediate refund or compensation
(damages).
There is one exception. This is when the
buyer is a consumer and returns the goods
in the first six months from the date of the
sale, and requests a repair or replacement
or, thereafter, a partial or full refund. In that
case, the consumer does not have to prove
the goods were faulty at the time of the
sale. It is assumed that they were. If the
retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove
that the goods were satisfactory at the time
of sale. For goods returned after six months
the normal rules apply so that it would be
for the consumer to demonstrate they were
faulty when sold.

This is from ===>>> http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

KeithP

elljay20,
it might be worth you while reading all of the cited document -
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

The first paragraph reads...

As a trader you need to know how the law
relating to the supply of goods and services
affects you and your customers. This Guide
attempts to explain the operation of the law
in the UK.

elljay20

KeithP wrote: »

Isn't there some legislation somewhere that if a fault develops in the first six months then it is up to the retailer to prove the goods weren't faulty at the time of sale. After six months it is the responsibility of the purchaser to provide this proof.

Yes, here it is...

Proving the fault
Generally, the buyer needs to demonstrate
the goods were faulty at the time of sale.
This is so if he chooses to request an
immediate refund or compensation
(damages).
There is one exception. This is when the
buyer is a consumer and returns the goods
in the first six months from the date of the
sale, and requests a repair or replacement
or, thereafter, a partial or full refund. In that
case, the consumer does not have to prove
the goods were faulty at the time of the
sale. It is assumed that they were. If the
retailer does not agree, it is for him to prove
that the goods were satisfactory at the time
of sale. For goods returned after six months
the normal rules apply so that it would be
for the consumer to demonstrate they were
faulty when sold.

This is from ===>>> http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf

then the screen would have to be cracked when it left the shop, surely.

thesaint

elljay20 wrote: »

then the screen would have to be cracked when it left the shop, surely.

No, the consumer would just have to reasonably show that the product isn't fit for purpose. Mobile phones should survive 'Normal' use.

The D900/D900i is well documented for having this problem, so it wouldn't be hard to get a separate retailer to provide a letter documenting this.

If the retailer did take it to court, I think they'd lose.
For the amount involved, most will simply replace the phone. Going to court costs them a few hundred, replacing the phone £70 give or take.

As they say over the pond "You do the math".

KeithP

elljay20 wrote: »

then the screen would have to be cracked when it left the shop, surely.

I am not a lcd screen expert, but is it possible that the screen had a hidden fault that over time became visible? I don't know. Maybe it was cracked but there was no noticable effect.

The point is though, the legislation I quoted tells us quite clearly that it is the retailer's responsibility to prove that the screen was not so damaged at the time of sale.