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

[matttye]

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.

As stated, it would be the retailer that the OP would have to take it up with, not the manufacturer.

If the retailer said that 1 year only is a reasonable amount of time, then they would surely be asked why the phones are sold with longer service contracts than that.

 

[mikethebigo]

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.

The Dell case also never went to trial. It can't really be used as an argument because you don't know how it would have turned out if it did. Dell probably just felt that a new TV would cost them less than hiring a lawyer to fight the lawsuit, and would give them some good PR as well.

It is also more reasonable to assume that a mobile phone has accidental damage than a TV simply due to the nature of the device. I haven't accidentally dropped a TV on the ground before, but I have dropped a phone.

I don't want to get into the merits of extended warranties, but I do think that Apple can use the fact that 1 year warranties are standard across the board to argue that 1 year is the period in which it is reasonable to assume any failure of the phone is a manufacturing defect.

 

[jedispongee]

Some of you guys here are hilarious.

ArmitageShanker, did you read the text of act yourself, or are you going by what was published in a magazine? If you read all of the text and wish to continue with this suit, good luck. If you did not read the text and you are going by what a magazine published, then you are foolish.

If you did indeed read the text, then you should not be offended as you are not foolish (in this case). Did you read all the relevant cases pertaining to the Sale of Goods Act? Cases that would indicate how the law would be interpreted or how that interpretation has changed? If not, I suggest you should do so. Of course, this should be due diligence and worthy of your effort as you are thinking about moving forward with a lawsuit based at least partially on principal.

Here is the link, just in case: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_1

If you're going to argue that a "reasonable amount of time" should be what you feel is correct, I wish you the best of luck.

As stated, it would be the retailer that the OP would have to take it up with, not the manufacturer.

If the retailer said that 1 year only is a reasonable amount of time, then they would surely be asked why the phones are sold with longer service contracts than that.

Apple provides the phone. The telecom provides the phone service. I doubt that has any implication against Apple. This argument is somewhat of a good try though.

Actually, not really.

 

[mikethebigo]

As stated, it would be the retailer that the OP would have to take it up with, not the manufacturer.

If the retailer said that 1 year only is a reasonable amount of time, then they would surely be asked why the phones are sold with longer service contracts than that.

Okay, fine. Assuming he didn't buy it through Apple retail, whatever retailer he DOES take it up with can use the same argument.

I still don't believe that the length of the service contract has anything to do with it. Just because O2 or whatever will give you OTA data for 2 years doesn't meant the phone HAS to work that long.

How about if I break my phone, and then demand that O2 give me another because I'm still on the service contract? They're obligated for my hardware to work as long as the contract is active, right? Wrong.

 

[matttye]

Apple provides the phone. The telecom provides the phone service. I doubt that has any implication against Apple. This argument is somewhat of a good try though.

Actually, not really.

That's irrelevant.

If O2 sell me a phone with an 18 month contract attached to it and I treat the phone like it's my first born child and it still breaks before the remainder of the contract is up, any sensible person would agree that the product was not of a good enough quality to be sold. When a phone is sold with a contract attached to it there is an expectation that that is the device you will be using for the duration of the contract. There's a reason you don't see 10 year contracts!

The Sale of Goods Act states that claims are to be made against the retailer (ie. the telecom), not the manufacturer... so it doesn't really have anything to do with Apple unless the phone was purchased from their store.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

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.

I was aware of this, thanks. To quote Which? "Retailer or manufacturer?

In most cases, your rights are against the retailer – the company that sold you the product – not the manufacturer, and so you must take any claim against the retailer."

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.

Whether they admit it or not is kind of missing the point. It's not their call to make in a County Court.

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.

Dear oh dear - the duration of the warranty is irrelevant. Would a judge consider that it should've lasted 18 months? That is the only question that matters.

 

[androiphone]

Apple provides the phone. The telecom provides the phone service. I doubt that has any implication against Apple. This argument is somewhat of a good try though.

Actually, not really.

apple makes the phone > O2 buys the phone from apple > O2 sells the phone with a service to the customer subsidised/or outright on payandgo, therefore you bought the phone from O2 NOT apple, you have to remember that america isnt the only country in the world and things might be done differently in other countries

for the warrenty if something goes wrong it is O2 you go to for replacement not apple, the same is true under the sales of goods act

 

[mikethebigo]

Whether they admit it or not is kind of missing the point. It's not their call to make in a County Court.

But it is what their very intelligent and highly paid lawyers will argue, and I think they'll argue it very effectively. I'm not sure about this, but what happens if the county court rules against them? Can it be appealed to a higher body? Because I feel Apple would continue to appeal until they won, since they stand to lose a lot of money over time if they lose.

 

[matttye]

Okay, fine. Assuming he didn't buy it through Apple retail, whatever retailer he DOES take it up with can use the same argument.

I still don't believe that the length of the service contract has anything to do with it. Just because O2 or whatever will give you OTA data for 2 years doesn't meant the phone HAS to work that long.

How about if I break my phone, and then demand that O2 give me another because I'm still on the service contract? They're obligated for my hardware to work as long as the contract is active, right? Wrong.

When you get a phone with your contract it is implied that that is the phone you will use for the entire contract.

 

[mikethebigo]

When you get a phone with your contract it is implied that that is the phone you will use for the entire contract.

Is it implied that that phone won't have hardware issues over the 2 year period? Scratch that, is it explicitly stated anywhere in the contract?

Like someone said, if you guys are basing your judgments on "what you feel is correct," you're going to have a tough time in court. BTW, do you think this is the first time someone's tried to use this argument? Hell, looks like that magazine article was written all the way back in 2001. I'm sure the telecos, or Apple, have ways to deal with this.

 

[jedispongee]

apple makes the phone > O2 buys the phone from apple > O2 sells the phone with a service to the customer subsidised/or outright on payandgo, therefore you bought the phone from O2 NOT apple, you have to remember that america isnt the only country in the world and things might be done differently in other countries

for the warrenty if something goes wrong it is O2 you go to for replacement not apple, the same is true under the sales of goods act

Great. I'll try to make sense of what you just said. Apple makes the phone. O2 buys the phone. O2 sells the phone with a service to the customer. Therefore whoever bought the phone from O2, buys it from O2 and not Apple. Then, somewhere in there, I believe America equals the world. Gotcha.

So, in a round-a-bout way, you agree with me that Apple is not at fault here. And if we are to continue with your reasoning, the OP should be calling the telecommunications company and threatening them with a lawsuit, and not Apple. Or am I wrong? Perhaps you should make this more clear too.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

The Dell case also never went to trial. It can't really be used as an argument because you don't know how it would have turned out if it did. Dell probably just felt that a new TV would cost them less than hiring a lawyer to fight the lawsuit, and would give them some good PR as well.

It is also more reasonable to assume that a mobile phone has accidental damage than a TV simply due to the nature of the device. I haven't accidentally dropped a TV on the ground before, but I have dropped a phone.

I don't want to get into the merits of extended warranties, but I do think that Apple can use the fact that 1 year warranties are standard across the board to argue that 1 year is the period in which it is reasonable to assume any failure of the phone is a manufacturing defect.

Of course they could use that argument. It's a bit of a silly one in my opinion but it would be their prerogative to use it if they so wished. Can't see a judge agreeing with it though.

Some of you guys here are hilarious.

ArmitageShanker, did you read the text of act yourself, or are you going by what was published in a magazine? If you read all of the text and wish to continue with this suit, good luck. If you did not read the text and you are going by what a magazine published, then you are foolish.

I'll assume you aren't in the UK, jedispongee, and will therefore excuse you. Which? aren't just any old magazine - they are the pre-eminent consumer rights organisation in the UK with unique powers bestowed upon them by government which allow them to lodge so-called super-complaints on behalf of consumers when they see fit. Questioning their knowledge and authority, if you knew who they were, would best be described as naive but more likely as foolish.

If you did indeed read the text, then you should not be offended as you are not foolish (in this case). Did you read all the relevant cases pertaining to the Sale of Goods Act? Cases that would indicate how the law would be interpreted or how that interpretation has changed? If not, I suggest you should do so. Of course, this should be due diligence and worthy of your effort as you are thinking about moving forward with a lawsuit based at least partially on principal.

I haven't read the full text of the act, and neither do I need to. Organisations such as Which? do that on my behalf. And neither do I intend to study case law to seek out precedents - I can pursue this claim at a nominal cost so there is little to gain from investing the necessary time to seek out and consume the case law.

Here is the link, just in case: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1979/cukpga_19790054_en_1

Thanks, but I know as much of it as I need to.

If you're going to argue that a "reasonable amount of time" should be what you feel is correct, I wish you the best of luck.

Thank you.

Apple provides the phone. The telecom provides the phone service. I doubt that has any implication against Apple. This argument is somewhat of a good try though.

Actually, not really.

Apple provide their phones with 24-month contracts, the implication being they could reasonable be expected to last that long. If you don't consider that to be a good try then that's fair enough. It's not you I would have to convince.

Okay, fine. Assuming he didn't buy it through Apple retail, whatever retailer he DOES take it up with can use the same argument.

Doesn't mean a judge will agree with them though.

I still don't believe that the length of the service contract has anything to do with it. Just because O2 or whatever will give you OTA data for 2 years doesn't meant the phone HAS to work that long.

You're quite right - it doesn't mean that it HAS to work for that long. That's not what the law requires, though. The legal test is whether or not it should reasonably be expected to last that long. I believe it should.

How about if I break my phone, and then demand that O2 give me another because I'm still on the service contract?

No, because you broke it. Please tell me you are being deliberately dim?

They're obligated for my hardware to work as long as the contract is active, right? Wrong.

They are obliged to supply you with goods which are of satisfactory quality, which means they must last for a reasonable time. Geddit?

 

[matttye]

Is it implied that that phone won't have hardware issues over the 2 year period? Scratch that, is it explicitly stated anywhere in the contract?

Like someone said, if you guys are basing your judgments on "what you feel is correct," you're going to have a tough time in court. BTW, do you think this is the first time someone's tried to use this argument? Hell, looks like that magazine article was written all the way back in 2001. I'm sure the telecos, or Apple, have ways to deal with this.

Why? The outcome of the case will be based on "what the Judge feels is correct" It's up to you to convince the Judge whether or not one year is a reasonable amount of time for the phone to work. Considering the iPhone is a premium product, it's unlikely that somebody would consider a year an excessive amount of time for it to stay in working order.

 

[dukebound85]

OP:

The only way you are going to know is to go to court

I don't know why you insist on carrying on this argument on a forum that will have no bearing whatsoever

However, do not be surprised to get shot down and billed legal fees if you lose

Frankly, I would just shell out the 200 and be on my way......this coming from a guy who is dealing with SONY who is not fulfilling a tv (cost 6000 dollars IN WARRANTY that had broke down due to issues they state explicitly in such warranty and after having a sony field tech confirm it that was they case. Yes, they are still denying it is their responsibility to cover it and guess what? I do not have near the legal means as Sony and neither do you with apple

Just saying

Is this really worth 200 bucks to you? i mean really? the outcome is iffy with the potential to cost you ALOT more. use some common sense here. This is NOT a 6000, or even a 1000 dollar device for example. It is a measly couple hundred

 

[mikethebigo]

Considering the iPhone is a premium product, it's unlikely that somebody would consider a year an excessive amount of time for it to stay in working order.

The iPhone being a premium product has nothing to do with the longevity of the device.

I still ask, why is it standard practice for the manu. warranty on smartphones to be one year? Sounds like the industry has chosen a reasonable amount of time to me.

They are obliged to supply you with goods which are of satisfactory quality, which means they must last for a reasonable time. Geddit?

Yep, I geddit. Except, you're just stating what you feel is right, while I am stating industry standards chosen by people that have a lot more authority on the matter than you.

 

[aliskr]

OP -- I just read your thread and it seems most of the replies, as I believe you highlighted earlier, are from people across the pond and needlessly unhelpful.

I do wish I could assist you in terms of law but I can only express my support for what is an interesting and important question. It is also very nice to see a fellow citizen challenging a seemingly unjust situation through reason. Law and public policy quite often gets things wrong and every nation needs its people to aggressively challenge and highlight the faults.

I have been thinking about this question myself, and it seemed odd to me that I had to pay Apple to insure my iPhone against hardware defects for last 12 months of 24 month contract. It should be highlighted that not all phones have such minimum warranty period which is a product of competitive pressure. Warranty period is usually >= contract period. Surely, one would reason that the phone should work for the complete period of 24 months, especially for a product with premium pricing.

Also as a consumer, I don't know the distribution of faults in the period between 13-24 months. For all we know, it may be quite high so essentially your total cost ends up monthly fee * 24 + subsidised cost of handset + cost for replacement headset (or repair). Of course it is not advertised that there is a X probability of such payout. Alternatively, you can buy an option to protect yourself before the end of month 12. In either case, there is hidden cost, in my opinion, that is not entirely apparent. More importantly, would this really happen if it was not for Apple's pricing power.

Anyway, I interned, long time ago, as a policy advisor in the Consumer and Competition Policy group at Department for Business, and there were definitely teams that looked into complaints of similar nature -- since I didn't work in this area; sorry I can't be of much help. It may be worth giving a call to one of these: Department for Business, Office of Fair Trading (remember colleagues directing people of them) and Ofcom (not sure about this one).

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Is it implied that that phone won't have hardware issues over the 2 year period? Scratch that, is it explicitly stated anywhere in the contract?

It doesn't need to be explicitly stated anywhere in a contract. The law says that the goods must be of satisfactory quality, which means they must last for a reasonable time. Simply because this piece of legislation is not referenced in the contract doesn't mean that it isn't applicable. The last time I bought a dishwasher, it wasn't supplied with a copy of the Sale of Goods Act. Doesn't mean I wasn't covered by it, though.

Like someone said, if you guys are basing your judgments on "what you feel is correct," you're going to have a tough time in court. BTW, do you think this is the first time someone's tried to use this argument? Hell, looks like that magazine article was written all the way back in 2001.

Looks like it was written in 2001? Come on, mike, you're not doing yourself any favours here. It was written in 2009 by much more authoritative and informed individuals than you or I.

I'm sure the telecos, or Apple, have ways to deal with this.

A bit like Dell did, you mean?

 

[mikethebigo]

Looks like it was written in 2001? Come on, mike, you're not doing yourself any favours here. It was written in 2009 by much more authoritative and informed individuals than you or I.

Okay, I found the wrong article. Please refer to my post above yours. I think that's basically the line drawn in the sand that neither of us will cross. I think 1 year is a reasonable limit. You do not. I think the only way to know for sure is for you to go to court, find out, and report back. I think you're in for a spanking though.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

OP:

The only way you are going to know is to go to court

I don't know why you insist on carrying on this argument on a forum that will have no bearing whatsoever

However, do not be surprised to get shot down and billed legal fees if you lose

Frankly, I would just shell out the 200 and be on my way......this coming from a guy who is dealing with SONY is not fulfilling a tv IN WARRANTY that had broke down due to issues they state explicitly in such warranty and after having a sony rep confirm it that was they case. Yes, they are still denying it is their responsibility to cover it and guess what? I do not have near the legal means as Sony and neither do you with apple

Just saying

That's the beauty of the County Court. I'm guessing you aren't in the UK and that you maybe don't have an equivalent wherever you are, but it effectively protects the small man against the giant corporation. There's a good summary here - http://www.aboutsmallclaims.co.uk/unreasonable-costs-order-small-claims.html

I think, as you advise, I'll probably drop it on here soon anyway. It's interesting to see what people on here think but the US-centric focus of the forum renders many of the opinions ill-informed or irrelevant so it's largely futile.

 

[Sun Baked]

In the US, if an issue keeps appearing regularly and/or is never fixed ... won't matter if the warranty ends.

Likely a customer has an easier time arguing that they brought it in for repair before the warranty expired, and give the date ... rather than arguing anything else.

Looks bad in court when the manufacturer, simply keeps putting off the customer and waiting for the warranty to expire instead of fixing the issue and/or refunding the money.

 

[dukebound85]

Please do report back with the result though. I hope they decide with you but if I were a betting man, I wouldn't get hopeful

Just my thoughts

 

[matttye]

The iPhone being a premium product has nothing to do with the longevity of the device.

I still ask, why is it standard practice for the manu. warranty on smartphones to be one year? Sounds like the industry has chosen a reasonable amount of time to me.

Premium products are commonly expected to last longer than cheaper alternatives. Ever heard of the saying "You get what you pay for" ?

Who says one year is standard practice, Apple?

Sony's warranty is usually 2 years.
HTC's warranty is usually 2 years.
Nokia's warranty is usually 2 years.

In fact, if anything, 2 years seems to be the standard here in the EU.

 

[mikethebigo]

Edit: Nvm. Done arguing. Good luck in court OP, I think you'll need it. Please let us know how it goes, even if it doesn't go your way.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Yep, I geddit. Except, you're just stating what you feel is right, while I am stating industry standards chosen by people that have a lot more authority on the matter than you.

You're stating what the industry has been able to get away with. Doesn't mean that a judge will agree with them.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

OP -- I just read your thread and it seems most of the replies, as I believe you highlighted earlier, are from people across the pond and needlessly unhelpful.

I do wish I could assist you in terms of law but I can only express my support for what is an interesting and important question. It is also very nice to see a fellow citizen challenging a seemingly unjust situation through reason. Law and public policy quite often gets things wrong and every nation needs its people to aggressively challenge and highlight the faults.

I have been thinking about this question myself, and it seemed odd to me that I had to pay Apple to insure my iPhone against hardware defects for last 12 months of 24 month contract. It should be highlighted that not all phones have such minimum warranty period which is a product of competitive pressure. Warranty period is usually >= contract period. Surely, one would reason that the phone should work for the complete period of 24 months, especially for a product with premium pricing.

Also as a consumer, I don't know the distribution of faults in the period between 13-24 months. For all we know, it may be quite high so essentially your total cost ends up monthly fee * 24 + subsidised cost of handset + cost for replacement headset (or repair). Of course it is not advertised that there is a X probability of such payout. Alternatively, you can buy an option to protect yourself before the end of month 12. In either case, there is hidden cost, in my opinion, that is not entirely apparent. More importantly, would this really happen if it was not for Apple's pricing power.

Anyway, I interned, long time ago, as a policy advisor in the Consumer and Competition Policy group at Department for Business, and there were definitely teams that looked into complaints of similar nature -- since I didn't work in this area; sorry I can't be of much help. It may be worth giving a call to one of these: Department for Business, Office of Fair Trading (remember colleagues directing people of them) and Ofcom (not sure about this one).

Thanks for the considered reply, aliskr. I'll likely stick with Which? Legal Service and the CAB for now as opposed to those organisations but I may get onto them eventually.