About to begin a battle with Apple. A cautionary tale?

[matttye]

The OP can easily pay to get the hardware fixed so that he can continue to use service. I don't see how the service contract is inexorably linked to the lifetime of the phone. It says that nowhere in the contract. And why is one part of the phone degrading over time different than another? It's all just phone hardware, and it goes bad.

How about because ALL batteries degrade over time? That's not a defect - it's just something that happens with the technology. However, if the battery life was cut by half in a year, I'd say you'd probably have a case, especially as the batteries are not replaceable. But that's an extreme example.

There's no reason why the ear speaker should break in five years as the long as the phone has been taken care of, let alone just one.

No, and most do. However, the warranty is 1 year unless you get applecare to extend it over the course of the contract.

The OP chose NOT to do that. It is his problem, not Apple's

I am really confused how this is hard to understand

You're not taking into account the Sale of Goods Act - which states that even if a product is out of warranty, you can argue that the product should have lasted longer than it did.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

No, and most do. However, the warranty is 1 year unless you get applecare to extend it over the course of the contract.

The OP chose NOT to do that. It is his problem, not Apple's

I am really confused how this is hard to understand

And I'm really confused how you don't understand the Sale of Goods Act.

I understand you don't feel the two costs are linked. I'm just saying, you had the chance to have a full warranty at this point, and, to quote Steve, "you blew it." Now you're trying to use the law to weasel your way into a free replacement on "principle." This annoys me.

I'm chatting with my law school friend about this. His response:

"yeah... that's stupid."

This person happens to have dual citizenship in the UK and has spent a large amount of time there.

It's not about whether or not you or I think the two costs are linked. It's about whether or not they are linked by law. They aren't - that's all there is to it. Extended warranty schemes such as , in the UK at least, are little more than a nice little earner for companies to extract a few more quid out of cautious consumers. Organisations such as Which?, who are pretty much the most well versed in the land on consumer law, advise against buying extended warranty schemes as the consumer is already provided with adequate protection under the Sale of Goods Act, so long as you are willing to go to the effort of pursuing a County Court claim (or, at least, threatening in writing to do so).

I'm not trying to 'weasel' anything here. To the contrary, Apple are trying to 'weasel' their way out of their obligation under law, much as Dell and countless others have done over the years. It's worth them doing because most consumers don't call their bluff but I'm game for the fight as I've little to lose.

Oh, and why don't you get your friend to explain the Sale of Goods Act to you whiel he's there - I'm sure you'll find it enlightening.

 

[JDee]

Can I just say that your phone and airtime (contract) are both completely different agreements. Because your pay monthly plan lasts for 18/24 months, it doesn't mean your phone should last for that time.

 

[androiphone]

The OP can easily pay to get the hardware fixed so that he can continue to use service. I don't see how the service contract is inexorably linked to the lifetime of the phone. It says that nowhere in the contract. And why is one part of the phone degrading over time different than another? It's all just phone hardware, and it goes bad.

Oh and to the OP: I know how much court costs because you said how much (80 euros). How much does applecare cost? Looks like 60 euros to me.

it doesnt matter when you buy a product you expect it to last a reasonable amount of time 1.5 years is not reasonable for a mobile phone, as for speakers they will resonably last for >20 years without a problem, yet with batteries ot is fully known that their capacity diminishes over time, therefore there is a difference.

the fact that it isnt in a service contract doesnt matter at all, it is fully resonable to assume that if you sign up for an 18 or 24 month contract your phone will contine you to fully work for all that time under normal use, and it is also fully resonable to assume that the phone should continue fully working for a few more years after the service has ended,

even though this example doesnt matter under the law I'll give it anyway, when the iphoen 3g was first released in mid2008 it was on 2.0, then in mid2009 it was upgraded to 3.0 now mid 2010 it is getting partial 4.0, which will take it over to 5.0 that it will very likely not be getting in mid 2011, therefore if you were to have bought the iphone on the first day of release it could be said that it is fully reasonable to have expected the phone to last at least 3 full years, and be fully funcional at the end of those 3 years, but as i said that doesnt matter as even if there wasnt any updated it is still fully reasonable for the phone to fully work after minimum of 3 years (infact every phone I have ever had still fully works some of them ~9years old) apples mobile phone can be expected to last the same (battery issues aside)

 

[mikethebigo]

How about because ALL batteries degrade over time? That's not a defect - it's just something that happens with the technology. However, if the battery life was cut by half in a year, I'd say you'd probably have a case, especially as the batteries are not replaceable. But that's an extreme example.

There's no reason why the ear speaker should break in five years as the long as the phone has been taken care of, let alone just one.

This is where Apple has you by the balls. The iPhone is a small device that's taken everywhere. Can the OP prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he has never once accidentally dropped the phone, or damaged it in some way?

I would also push your argument by saying that ALL TECHNOLOGY degrades over time, not just batteries. However, it is true that batteries are already generally known to degrade at that rate.

 

[dukebound85]

And I'm really confused how you don't understand the Sale of Goods Act.

Well I don't live in the UK for one

But I am not naive enough to think that Apple wouldn't know about this "act" when they implement their warranties for the UK


Why did you not buy warranty (applecare) for the length of your contract?

More power to you but my guess is:
1) you will lose money
2) you will waste your time
3) it is easier and cheaper to spend 200 and get a replacement iphone

Use some common sense in this case

 

[matttye]

This is where Apple has you by the balls. The iPhone is a small device that's taken everywhere. Can the OP prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he has never once accidentally dropped the phone, or damaged it in some way?

I would also push your argument by saying that ALL TECHNOLOGY degrades over time, not just batteries. However, it is true that batteries are already generally known to degrade at that rate.

Assuming there are no scuff marks or dents on it, that should be enough..

Yes all technology degrades over time, but a battery CONSTANTLY loses capacity. This is a known fact. A phone, or just electronic equipment in general, not working properly after a year is not a reasonable amount of time.

Well I don't live in the UK for one

But I am not naive enough to think that Apple wouldn't know about this "act" when they implement their warranties for the UK


Why did you not buy warranty (applecare) for the length of your contract?

They probably do know about it but that doesn't mean they can do anything about it. The majority of consumers probably won't know about the act, therefore Apple won't have that much to worry about.

 

[mikethebigo]

Assuming there are no scuff marks or dents on it, that should be enough..

Unless he had it in a case.

Yes all technology degrades over time, but a battery CONSTANTLY loses capacity. This is a known fact. A phone, or just electronic equipment in general, not working properly after a year is not a reasonable amount of time.

I consider any mobile electronic device that breaks after a year obnoxious, but not unreasonable or even unexpected. That's why people pay for extended warranties, because they know this is a possibility.

 

[matttye]

Unless he had it in a case.

Then Apple would have to prove the phone was damaged in some other way. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. He doesn't have to prove he hasn't dropped it - Apple have to prove he HAS dropped it.

I consider any mobile electronic device that breaks after a year obnoxious, but not unreasonable or even unexpected. That's why people pay for extended warranties, because they know this is a possibility.

Extended warranties aren't needed when you're covered by the sale of goods act though.

Obviously "a reasonable amount of time" is subjective, but I think you'll find most people would agree that a device should work properly for the entire contract. Even if it's not written into the contract, most people would expect that.

 

[androiphone]

I consider any mobile electronic device that breaks after a year obnoxious, but not unreasonable or even unexpected. That's why people pay for extended warranties, because they know this is a possibility.

you are in the US and it is very different there,
in the UK it simply does not matter, it is fully reasonable for your mobile phone to last far more than a year, and that is what the LAW says - end of

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Can I just say that your phone and airtime (contract) are both completely different agreements. Because your pay monthly plan lasts for 18/24 months, it doesn't mean your phone should last for that time.

The Act requires that goods can be expected to last for a reasonable time. I would put it to the County Court judge that it is reasonable for me to expect the phone to last for the duration of the contract. I'm confident he/she would agree.

 

[mikethebigo]

you are in the US and it is very different there,
in the UK it simply does not matter, it is fully reasonable for your mobile phone to last far more than a year, and that is what the LAW says - end of

The law does not say, anywhere, that it's reasonable for your mobile phone to last far more than a year. Source please.

Guess what? Apple is a US company, and in the US, Apple provides a 12 month manufacturer's warranty. Obviously, Apple feels that 12 months is a reasonable amount of time to expect no hardware failures.

I think they could very easily argue that point in court. And everyone loses for the time and money wasted.

Again, service contract length and hardware reliability periods are two different things. In a perfect world they would coincide, but this isn't a perfect world.

 

[thelatinist]

The Act requires that goods can be expected to last for a reasonable time. I would put it to the County Court judge that it is reasonable for me to expect the phone to last for the duration of the contract. I'm confident he/she would agree.

What is your purpose in posting here? You don't seem to want to hear anything but agreement. If that's all you want, why don't you write in a diary?

 

[ArmitageShanker]

This is where Apple has you by the balls. The iPhone is a small device that's taken everywhere. Can the OP prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he has never once accidentally dropped the phone, or damaged it in some way?

I would also push your argument by saying that ALL TECHNOLOGY degrades over time, not just batteries. However, it is true that batteries are already generally known to degrade at that rate.

Just because you use language such as "beyond reasonable doubt' that you once heard on an episode of Law & Order doesn't lend weight to your argument.

The Act states that I need to could show that I shouldn't expect the phone to develop this problem at this stage in its life. The phone has never been dropped and has never been exposed to water or any other contaminants. As such, it exhibits no signs of trauma. That will be sufficient to convince a judge that the device has been satisfactorily cared for.

The law does not say, anywhere, that it's reasonable for your mobile phone to last far more than a year. Source please.

Guess what? Apple is a US company, and in the US, Apple provides a 12 month manufacturer's warranty. Obviously, Apple feels that 12 months is a reasonable amount of time to expect no hardware failures.

I think they could very easily argue that point in court. And everyone loses for the time and money wasted.

Again, service contract length and hardware reliability periods are two different things. In a perfect world they would coincide, but this isn't a perfect world.

I don't need a source - it's a necessarily subjective interpretation and the onus would be on me to convince the judge that it I can reasonably expected it to have lasted for longer than it has.

Apple being a US company is, once again, irrelevant. Companies must abide by the laws of the countries in which they trade. This simply isn't Apple's judgement to make, and neither is it mine - should it get to County Court, it would be the judgement of the judge to make.

 

[androiphone]

The law does not say, anywhere, that it's reasonable for your mobile phone to last far more than a year. Source please.

Guess what? Apple is a US company, and in the US, Apple provides a 12 month manufacturer's warranty. Obviously, Apple feels that 12 months is a reasonable amount of time to expect no hardware failures.

I think they could very easily argue that point in court. And everyone loses for the time and money wasted.

I knew you were going to be pedantic like that, it says that your goods are required to last a reasonable amount of time, it doesnt matter if it is a mobile phone, computer, TV, a wallet, a handbag, a pair of socks, anything.

it also doesnt matter at all on the country of origin at all, as I have said before it is the place you bought it from that is bound by the sales of goods act which is very likely it will be O2 in the OPs case, if you bought it from an apple store then it would be directly apples responsibility as they are trading in the UK under UK law.
also with the sueing that is being battered arround you wouldnt be sueing apple you are sueing the place you bought it from, be it apple or ANYWHERE else

 

[Zaviex]

Agreed - anyone with any common sense would agree that the phone should last for the remainder of the contract. You should pursue it.

Check out this website which explains the Sale of Goods Act in simple terms, specifically this part:

"Having said this, items which should last several years can still break down after this six month period. If the retailer or manufacturer’s warranty has run out, the shop is often quick to say there is nothing they can do before attempting to sell you an extended warranty. This is misleading. If you buy something which should last 7 years but breaks down after a year and a day, you can still claim it was of poor quality in reference to the durability aspect. In this respect it will help to know how long items such as washing machines or printers should last. You can get this information relevant trade association"

The part in bold is something that definitely applies here - even though the warranty is only for a year, it is completely reasonable to expect the product to work properly for the entire contract. If a product is expected to break down before the contract is up, then it should not be legal to sell that product with a contract that is longer than its expected lifetime.

The one thing you need to realise about posting here is that this is an Apple fan site. You will get biased responses whenever you post anything negative about their beloved company.

This is the truth. I live in the United States but the way the law is written it SHOULD last for the full 18 monnths of contract.

Your Dilemma lies here. Can you win a battle with Apple?

No you cant

HOWEVER!!!! Apple does not want this to go public and hence force them to extend the warranty even if they win the case. I can almost assure you that Apple agrees to a settlement outside of court that probably nets you 35k so i think this is a win win situation.

Not only do you get your point across.... you likely pick up some cash as well

 

[mikethebigo]

Just because you use language such as "beyond reasonable doubt' that you once heard on an episode of Law & Order doesn't lend weight to your argument.

The Act states that I need to could show that I shouldn't expect the phone to develop this problem at this stage in its life. The phone has never been dropped and has never been exposed to water or any other contaminants. As such, it exhibits no signs of trauma. That will be sufficient to convince a judge that the device has been satisfactorily cared for.

I actually don't watch Law & Order. I did catch a few Ally McBeal episodes while they were on though

The law states that up to 6 months, it's on the manufacturer to prove the phone is not faulty. After 6 months, it's up to YOU to PROVE that it is. You can't. Just because you walk in and say, "I never dropped it, I swear" doesn't mean you've proven it.

And again, the law does say that if you don't expect the phone to have a problem it's Apple's job to replace it. But, again, extended warranties are sold because people DO EXPECT PROBLEMS.

 

[mikethebigo]

I knew you were going to be pedantic like that

Then you should have edited your post so that it was more clear. And the country of origin matters because in that country of origin, 12 months has been chosen as the reasonable period. There is no justification for the reasonable period being longer just because you're in another country.

 

[Zaviex]

Then you should have edited your post so that it was more clear. And the country of origin matters because in that country of origin, 12 months has been chosen as the reasonable period. There is no justification for the reasonable period being longer just because you're in another country.

Your not very intelligent Mike.

The laws of international trade REQUIRE Apple to follow the laws of trade in every country in which they pursue trade and if the laws in the UK require them to provide a fair period of service, they MUST provide it or hence they are breaking the law in the UK and can be banned from trading there

 

[ArmitageShanker]

What is your purpose in posting here? You don't seem to want to hear anything but agreement. If that's all you want, why don't you write in a diary?

Am I breaking the rules by daring to argue? If you don't want to read anything other than fanboi propaganda, why did you open this thread?

 

[matttye]

Am I breaking the rules by daring to argue? If you don't want to read anything other than fanboi propaganda, why did you open this thread?

Just to let you know, not sure if you missed it, but the guy who posted earlier was right: the sale of goods act states that the onus is on the retailer to make sure that a product lasts for a reasonable amount of time, not the manufacturer.

So if you bought it from Carphone Warehouse or O2, for example, you'd have to take it up with them and not Apple. Obviously if you got it from Apple online or from an Apple store, then you'd take it up with Apple.

 

[androiphone]

Then you should have edited your post so that it was more clear. And the country of origin matters because in that country of origin, 12 months has been chosen as the reasonable period. There is no justification for the reasonable period being longer just because you're in another country.

I was going to change it but the speed this thread was going it was already quoted, so decided not to

as for the 12 months that is standard on all electrical products from all countries, interestingly in all of the EU except of the UK it is law that there must be a 2 year warrenty on (I think) all electrical items,
and say if you buy an apple imac from pc world and it breaks within the 12 month warrenty you don't take it back to apple you take it back to pc world and they will fully fix it under warrenty, (it may be different in the US where you have to go to apple if you bought it from best buy and TBH it doesnt matter if it is or isnt because we are talking about the UK here), it is the same under the sales of goods act you go the company you bought it from and you argue it with them, even if it means that they send it to apple on your behalf.

 

[mikethebigo]

Your not very intelligent Mike.

The laws of international trade REQUIRE Apple to follow the laws of trade in every country in which they pursue trade and if the laws in the UK require them to provide a fair period of service, they MUST provide it or hence they are breaking the law in the UK and can be banned from trading there

LOL, the irony of your first sentence is overwhelming.

And your misunderstanding of what I'm saying isn't helping either. All I'm saying is that per Apple, 12 months is a reasonable period of time since that's the amount of time they give their warranties, well, everywhere. Apple will never, ever admit in the UK that 2 years is a fair period of time, because then they would be forced to cover the iPhone for 2 years by law.

They would instead say in court that almost all smartphones come standard with 1 year warranties, and for anything beyond that, is no longer reasonable to assume that nothing on the phone will malfunction due to normal use.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

I actually don't watch Law & Order. I did catch a few Ally McBeal episodes while they were on though

The law states that up to 6 months, it's on the manufacturer to prove the phone is not faulty. After 6 months, it's up to YOU to PROVE that it is. You can't. Just because you walk in and say, "I never dropped it, I swear" doesn't mean you've proven it.

And again, the law does say that if you don't expect the phone to have a problem it's Apple's job to replace it. But, again, extended warranties are sold because people DO EXPECT PROBLEMS.

Ah-ha - you've done a bit of background reading now!

The chap in the case against Dell that I cited similarly wouldn't have been able to prove that he hadn't knocked over his TV had he been asked to do so but, presumably, his TV, as with my phone, exhibited no signs of trauma or misuse. That is all the proof that could ever exist therefore that is all the proof that the law requires. If there is no evidence of misuse, proof that the phone has been satisfactorily cared for is implied.

Extended warranties are sold because some people are willing to buy them. Consumer organisations such as Which? advise extreme caution where extended warranties are concerned as legislation already provides for most, if not all, of what most warranties cover.

If I sell a man a phone and I convince him that he needs to buy a Guard-Hamster from me to protect him from having it stolen, that doesn't automatically imply that everybody needs one. I'll happily sell you one if you want it, though - it's sure to be a nice little earner for me.

 

[Zaviex]

LOL, the irony of your first sentence is overwhelming.

And your misunderstanding of what I'm saying isn't helping either. All I'm saying is that per Apple, 12 months is a reasonable period of time since that's the amount of time they give their warranties, well, everywhere. Apple will never, ever admit in the UK that 2 years is a fair period of time, because then they would be forced to cover the iPhone for 2 years by law.

They would instead say in court that almost all smartphones come standard with 1 year warranties, and for anything beyond that, is no longer reasonable to assume that nothing on the phone will malfunction due to normal use.

Yes but a reasonable period of time is SUBJECTIVE. A judge will easily look at this case and see that 12 months is shorter than the contract of the phone and the judge will accept his point as valid the only problem for him is the guys on the other side wont just roll over and let the warranty get extended. However I do think he can at least get a settlement