Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
+1 for the consumer!
- Thread starter MacknTosh
- Start date
-
- Tags
- watch
- Sort by reaction score
Great story. I know some posters have criticised the UK's consumer laws but I'm glad we have them. I wonder how the buyer in the case would have fared in the US judicial system with a similar claim?
I don't necessarily think it has to be Apple's fault.... just because something goes wrong does't mean somebody is to blame. That said, should the consumer suffer because, e.g. a faulty watch face made it to market?? (can open - worms everywhere!!!).
Assuming that he wasn't lying in court, then the crack was there from the beginning, or it developed after purchase. I would have asked for a replacement too under consumer law.
I agree with what you say but both parties have no way of proving what caused it to crack.
Realistically it was him, as its so new he tried to pin the blame to Apple as the device was 10 days old.
[doublepost=1454435126][/doublepost]
Chances are he was.
if it it was there from day 1 it should have been noted and escalated (whether it was delivered or bought in store) I'd be very very surprised if it happened over the course of the 10 days.
My guess is he possible clipped it on something (without knowing) then went ahead with Apple
The original BBC story has been updated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-35475433
"Apple has now changed the description of the watch, removing the claim it was resistant to impact."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-35475433
"Apple has now changed the description of the watch, removing the claim it was resistant to impact."
Last edited:
I think he should have lost. That's why you get AppleCare, buddy.
And he said this: "I went for the sport version because I am prone to knocking things about a bit and it said it was impact resistant."
Impact resistance is relative. It's not "impact-proof", and he admitted he's somewhat reckless.
It was probably just an anti-business judge. Always comes down to the judge.
And he said this: "I went for the sport version because I am prone to knocking things about a bit and it said it was impact resistant."
Impact resistance is relative. It's not "impact-proof", and he admitted he's somewhat reckless.
It was probably just an anti-business judge. Always comes down to the judge.
It's hard to know what happened in the case without reading a transcript, and I don't think there would be one. But two things occur to me:-
1. It's possible Apple didn't even turn up to defend the case so a judgement would have been entered into by default. It always amuses me when this sort of thing happens, the cost of defending the case and the resultant bad publicity if lost would be so much greater than just replacing the watch in the first place.
2. Reading between the lines of the article it sounds like the whole case revolved around Apple's description of 'impact resistance'. UK law always comes down to what a 'reasonable person' would expect. In this case it appears it was judged that a reasonable person would not consider the watch to be impact resistant.
If you think you're right you have to be prepared to go all the way to court, if more people did this then companies wouldn't ride rough shod over consumer rights all the time. I have faced down Apple twice, over an iPhone and laptop both out of warranty that were initially turned down for free repair. I was ready to go but it never got that far.
1. It's possible Apple didn't even turn up to defend the case so a judgement would have been entered into by default. It always amuses me when this sort of thing happens, the cost of defending the case and the resultant bad publicity if lost would be so much greater than just replacing the watch in the first place.
2. Reading between the lines of the article it sounds like the whole case revolved around Apple's description of 'impact resistance'. UK law always comes down to what a 'reasonable person' would expect. In this case it appears it was judged that a reasonable person would not consider the watch to be impact resistant.
If you think you're right you have to be prepared to go all the way to court, if more people did this then companies wouldn't ride rough shod over consumer rights all the time. I have faced down Apple twice, over an iPhone and laptop both out of warranty that were initially turned down for free repair. I was ready to go but it never got that far.
It's more likely that it was using the reasonable man test, which most of these decisions come down to. If he used the watch in a perfectly normal manner as a reasonable person might, having something that is advertised as impact resistant would imply a certain amount of force that actually would go above the normal amount of force a watch might be subject to.
I say this because generally companies advertise things that are above and beyond that of what a reasonable man would expect in the product. In other words watch companies don't advertise that their products tell the time - that's expected. They don't advertise that it's impact resistant because outside of normal use they aren't. To go on and advertise something specifically for it's resistance to impact implicitly implies this it can resist impacts beyond normal use.
So in this case, merely using it in a normal fashion should not have, as a reasonable person would have expected, resulted in a crack on the screen.
[doublepost=1454521696][/doublepost]
Ah you got there first!
This isn't + anything for the consumer. All this is, is the uk court system thinking theyre sticking it to the big bad corporation.
Exactly. We've seen from posts after posts that the UK tends to have worse customer service (meaning the Apple stores there are more hard-nosed about potential problems compared to U.S. Apple Stores and less likely to take the customers' words), despite the excessive "customer protection laws" there. Those who are "glad" for such laws are fooling themselves.
ACSI surveys both the States and the UK. Latest results for Apple mobiles show customer satisfaction in the US at 80% and 81% in the UK. How did you come up with your figures?
No legal system is perfect but I if had to choose between the US and UK I would choose the latter.
No we're not. In the UK, we have the Sale of Goods Act. This states that goods bought from a retailer must be of "merchantable quality". In other words, those goods must perform as described for a reasonable time, otherwise the consumer is entitled to a refund or replacement. The contract is between the consumer and the retailer, not the manufacturer. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me, and not at all excessive for either party.
I saw one of the articles on this the other day. Of course don't know exactly what was presented in court but I have to think in my mind the guy cracked it. Unless he never wanted the watch to begin with I'm pretty sure he looked over the watch when he got it, ran his fingers on the face and base many time admiring it. Must have cleaned the face and case a few times in those 10 days. I'm betting there was no crack there when it was delivered.
I can't tell you how many times when I first got my AW that I caught myself hitting my hand with the watch on into doorways and such. Probably hit my wrist into things all the time before but wasn't aware how often until I knew I had a breakable watch on it. Fortunately for me (even with Apple Care+) I got by with no damage but even the sapphire can be cracked if hit just right. Apple advertised the "essentially" gorilla glass in the sport watch as impact resistant not impact proof and which by all accounts that I have read about the material is true. I also feel if there had been some kind of imperfection in that segment of gorilla glass it would have cracked much more than that, kind of like how a windshield crack will spread or what you see on cellphone screens. So admittedly with little knowledge about his case IMO Apple unfairly got the shaft on this decision. Yeah it sucks to buy something new and see it damaged when you haven't really even used it but knowing how many times I noticed I hit my own watch face into things when I first got it, I just think he probably did too.
I do have to wonder what kind of defense the attorney representing Apple presented. Also did Apple refuse to repair it for him? (to me should have been offered at his cost). I could see him wanting a new watch and them saying it wasn't a defect and was determined to be due to his wear and he not particularly happy with that decision. Not wanting to shell out for a repair fee, he sued.
[doublepost=1454535676][/doublepost]
Sounds a bit like a Lemon Law here. In this particular case though I still suspect he hit his arm with the watch on it into something a number of days into owning it and cracked it. No glass product is unbreakable either.
I can't tell you how many times when I first got my AW that I caught myself hitting my hand with the watch on into doorways and such. Probably hit my wrist into things all the time before but wasn't aware how often until I knew I had a breakable watch on it. Fortunately for me (even with Apple Care+) I got by with no damage but even the sapphire can be cracked if hit just right. Apple advertised the "essentially" gorilla glass in the sport watch as impact resistant not impact proof and which by all accounts that I have read about the material is true. I also feel if there had been some kind of imperfection in that segment of gorilla glass it would have cracked much more than that, kind of like how a windshield crack will spread or what you see on cellphone screens. So admittedly with little knowledge about his case IMO Apple unfairly got the shaft on this decision. Yeah it sucks to buy something new and see it damaged when you haven't really even used it but knowing how many times I noticed I hit my own watch face into things when I first got it, I just think he probably did too.
I do have to wonder what kind of defense the attorney representing Apple presented. Also did Apple refuse to repair it for him? (to me should have been offered at his cost). I could see him wanting a new watch and them saying it wasn't a defect and was determined to be due to his wear and he not particularly happy with that decision. Not wanting to shell out for a repair fee, he sued.
[doublepost=1454535676][/doublepost]
Sounds a bit like a Lemon Law here. In this particular case though I still suspect he hit his arm with the watch on it into something a number of days into owning it and cracked it. No glass product is unbreakable either.
Last edited:
That's what the customary one-year warranty is for. Here in the U.S., we just have the Apple Store swap out a defective product under warranty regardless of where we bought it. Whereas in your case the Apple Store is more likely to be hard nosed about it and say "Not our problem" and make you go to the retailer.
See, that's why those so-called customer protection laws do more harm than good and why we consistently get better services than you do without the "nanny state" government meddling in the middle.
[doublepost=1454541307][/doublepost]
One doesn't necessarily know how bad/good they have it. Why is it that based on the posts here, UK customers tend to get worse services from the Apple Store (from American customers' perspective)? We've seen time and time again "That'd never happen here" or "The Apple Store here wouldn't do that" when we hear about a foreign Apple Store being hard nosed about an issue.
Such a survey is meaningless unless one gets a taste of both systems and more often than not, the grass is greener on the other side.
Last edited:
A self-admitted klutz bangs a piece of glass on something and is surprised when it breaks?
The "reasonable man argument" would tell him to stick it.
PS: This is why I shouldn't be a judge. Or maybe I should, so I can tell lawyers to take a hike.
The "reasonable man argument" would tell him to stick it.
PS: This is why I shouldn't be a judge. Or maybe I should, so I can tell lawyers to take a hike.
I think the guy lied. I wasn't in the courtroom when this case was being heard, but just from what's being said.
It doesn't sound like he's making the claim that the crack was there from the start. That he thinks because it's "impact resistant", it should have been able to take what he was doing up to that point.
What's more likely, that he hadn't bumped it at all, or lightly, and a crack magically showed up, 10 days later, or that somebody, who admitted to being clumsy, had a stroke of bad luck, 10 days in, and wanted to try to pin it on Apple?
It doesn't sound like he's making the claim that the crack was there from the start. That he thinks because it's "impact resistant", it should have been able to take what he was doing up to that point.
What's more likely, that he hadn't bumped it at all, or lightly, and a crack magically showed up, 10 days later, or that somebody, who admitted to being clumsy, had a stroke of bad luck, 10 days in, and wanted to try to pin it on Apple?
Oh okay. Well I just thought it best to present some facts rather than stick my figure up in the air.
I understand that. However, it doesn't mean they can be compared. This can be likened to a survey showing that 80% is happy in California and 85% is happy in Utah, and coming to the conclusion that Utah is a happier state to be in than California. A Californian who has never been to Utah wouldn't know if they'd be happier in Utah, and vice versa.