Apple Care v Sale of Goods Act (UK)

[gnasher729]

Sorry but you lost me on this one! If my trackpad broke in 9 months I certainly would not wait 4 years to calm it broke within the first year and demand it be repaired for free. (Scratches head)

Well, take the case that your MacBook breaks two days before the one year warranty ends. This seems to say that you don't have to rush to the store before the one year ends, but the store would have to fix the MacBook if you turn up say a week later. It is of course wiser to go to the store immediately to avoid any arguments. Or send them an e-mail immediately that tells them your Mac is broken to have some evidence.

Everything was great until after a few months had passed the magsafe charger wire had started to burn and eventually it stopped working, i then had to wait weeks to buy another charger and when i got it the macbook pro wouldn't charge the battery anymore making it more of a desktop computer and very annoying as i wanted to use it for college.

That sounds like you continued using the charge after it "started to burn". Surely that is asking for trouble. And if you used your battery until it was empty and then didn't charge it for weeks, that might have damaged it.

I would go to the nearest Apple Store and let them check which parts are working and which are not (does your charger charge on a different laptop? Does it charge a different battery inside your MacBook? Does your battery charge inside a different MacBook? Only takes them ten seconds to check). Then go to eBay and buy replacement for whatever doesn't work.

 

[GAS]

I tried to use the sales of goods act when my logic board went kapow at 18 months.

Apple said to me: "Prove that the fault was there at the time of purchase and they would replace it for free". It's basically impossible to prove that there was a fault with the logic board when I bought it. So in this situation the Sales of Goods Act isn't much use.

But Apple being the loving company they are gave me a massive £54 as a goodwill gesture!!!!1

 

[Macky-Mac]

This isn't accurate. The sale of goods act has nothing to do with warrantees. Retailers will try and convince you of that, but it is not true. If a product becomes faulty within a time where you could reasonably expect it to work. (Up to 6 years) The retailer has a legal obligation to fix or replace it.

unfortunately, as the info in your next post shows, the law also put a burden of proof on the consumer that's almost impossible to meet

Relevant or Related Legislation:
Sale of Goods Act 1979. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.

Key Facts:
• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale).

.....

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time (i.e. perishable goods do not last for six years).

• If a consumer chooses to request a repair or replacement, then for the first six months after purchase it will be for the retailer to prove the goods did conform to contract (e.g. were not inherently faulty)

• After six months and until the end of the six years, it is for the consumer to prove the lack of conformity.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

prove that its their fault and not yours.....


thats the problem.

how many consumers can prove there was an inherent defect in the product at the time they bought it?? and what would it cost to do that??

in theory the Sales of Goods act sounds useful, but in real life it doesn't really offer the consumer much help

 

[MacModMachine]

unfortunately, as the info in your next post shows, the law also put a burden of proof on the consumer that's almost impossible to meet





how many consumers can prove there was an inherent defect in the product at the time they bought it?? and what would it cost to do that??

in theory the Sales of Goods act sounds useful, but in real life it doesn't really offer the consumer much help

im not sure if you are agreeing with me...but thats what i was trying to point out....im confused...lol

 

[Macky-Mac]

im not sure if you are agreeing with me...but thats what i was trying to point out....im confused...lol

yes, i agree with you

 

[Jobsian]

I just had to register (having been a reader of the forum for ages) because of the sheer misconstruction of the UK law.

unfortunately, as the info in your next post shows, the law also put a burden of proof on the consumer that's almost impossible to meet
......
how many consumers can prove there was an inherent defect in the product at the time they bought it?? and what would it cost to do that??

in theory the Sales of Goods act sounds useful, but in real life it doesn't really offer the consumer much help

That is quite incorrect. It doesn't just cover "inherent faults" at all. The error you make is in overlooking this part of the law, which in fact ditzy already posted:

• Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description.

• Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety.

• It is the seller, not the manufacturer, who is responsible if goods do not conform to contract.

Durability implies a fault developing after a product is purchased.

And contrary to what someone said earlier, claimants don't "always lose" and in fact a landmark case in 1994 saw Curry's pay up for a washing machine that broke after 18 months.

Don't be duped by corporations trying to tell you that if your product happens to be out of their manufacturers warranty, they won't fix the product - the manufacturers warranty does not exempt them from the law one iota.

Unfortunately, the amount of awareness on the matter, regrettably including store employees and managers, and the amount of $$$ paid by oblivious customers is woeful, truly woeful.

 

[AnotherFanBoy]

You have six years to make a claim for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland you have five years.

That means you have up to 6 or 5 years to prove that the unit was faulty when it arrived. So for example, you get a screen with a crack in it, you have 6 or 5 years to make a claim on that. But obviously, Apple replaces it much faster than this.

Ok so under that interpretation the consumer could claim the trackpad broke after 9 months and they choose only now after 4 years to make a claim for repair. How could Apple or any retailer disprove this?

In order to make the claim you would have to go to court, most likely small claims court, and I'm sure you know about lying in court.

• For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement).

This means damages for the original defect, not for something that happens after your goods arrive in perfect condition. The whole point of the Act is to protect consumers from being given faulty goods or goods that do not do what they say they do.

in theory the Sales of Goods act sounds useful, but in real life it doesn't really offer the consumer much help

It is useful if it is interpreted and used correctly and in good time.

It amazes me how poor the interpretation of this law is. I have been studying English law for 2 years already, and I'm about to start a LLB. But seriously, you don't have to be a practising solicitor to work this out, it's common sense. You seem to think that the law means anything that breaks in 6 years has to be repaired. How can that possibly work?

 

[maggotmac]

Interesting stuff but has the OP actually tried to take the faulty mac to an apple store?

In my opinion this is a give or take situation. Apple has the responsabilty to sell you a good working order mac but it is your responsibilty to look after and not abuse it.

If you are worried that you may misuse it or worried an accident will break you mac then buy apple care! Too many people here buy apples products (showing you support and prefer their products) yet STEAL off apple when it comes to stuff like this.

Just because Apple has a great customer service doesn't mean you can abuse it by claiming out of warrenty etc... Would you ever get companies like DELL ever giving out free repair laptops when something goes wrong years after you bought it? Answer = NO.

 

[Macky-Mac]

.... It doesn't just cover "inherent faults" at all. The error you make is in overlooking this part of the law, which in fact ditzy already posted:

Durability implies a fault developing after a product is purchased.

It's the fact that after 6 months the burden of proving

Looking back at ditzy's post, I think the concept of "inherent fault" includes being insufficiently durable to hold up for the expected amount of time, but even if it isn't, even if you want to consider that a separate requirement..... that's not why I think the law doesn't really provide the protection that people claim.

Here's the problem;

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time.....

Consumers are not typically in a position to "prove" any such thing.

And should they decide to try, the costs in time and money are going to be prohibitive well beyond the point of it being a practical thing to do. The consumer has to sue, go to court and then present evidence that the product was inherently flawed or not sufficiently durable or whatever. Of course the retailer is going to counter with arguments showing why the consumer is wrong and the consumer is going to have to convincingly refute the retailers counter argument. Does the typical consumer have access to sufficiently convincing evidence to "prove" their claim? Are they prepared to spend time and money preparing their evidence and then presenting it in court themselves?

It's certainly theoretically possible to make a claim and win, but the burden placed on the consumer by this law is so great that the protection it's supposed to provide is mostly reduced to a sham.

 

[Jobsian]

Looking back at ditzy's post, I think the concept of "inherent fault" includes being insufficiently durable to hold up for the expected amount of time, but even if it isn't, even if you want to consider that a separate requirement..... that's not why I think the law doesn't really provide the protection that people claim.

Here's the problem;

• In general, the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract (e.g. was inherently faulty) and should have reasonably lasted until this point in time.....

Consumers are not typically in a position to "prove" any such thing.

Interesting post Macky, but the burden of proof that a faulty product did not conform to contract is quite easily met.

Conformity to contract not only entails the example above, but also that the product has to be "of satisfactory quality" that is quite clearly defined as including "durability".

If a product is faulty in some way without sign of trauma or meddling (which electronic manufacturers generally have safeguard seals for nowadays) or for example in the iPhone, if the water damage indicator is not activated, then the rational conclusion is that the fault is a failure of durability for that individual product.

And should they decide to try, the costs in time and money are going to be prohibitive well beyond the point of it being a practical thing to do. The consumer has to sue, go to court and then present evidence that the product was inherently flawed or not sufficiently durable or whatever. Of course the retailer is going to counter with arguments showing why the consumer is wrong and the consumer is going to have to convincingly refute the retailers counter argument. Does the typical consumer have access to sufficiently convincing evidence to "prove" their claim? Are they prepared to spend time and money preparing their evidence and then presenting it in court themselves?

It's certainly theoretically possible to make a claim and win, but the burden placed on the consumer by this law is so great that the protection it's supposed to provide is mostly reduced to a sham.

Perhaps you are in the US where the law isn't very altruistic, but it's a different matter in many if not most other industrialised nations and the procedure isn't at all prohibitive

In the UK, making a legal claim for a faulty item isn't costly. You do so via the small claims court. Fees are typically between £20 and £100 depending on the cost of the claim (up to £5000). In fact if you can't even afford that small cost, you may be entitled to a discount. And of course you can claim the full cost back if you win.

 

[Eraserhead]

It is only 5-6 years if that is a reasonable amount of time for the product. If you bought a Tesco value toaster and it broke after 1.5 years I don't believe you'd have a leg to stand on.

 

[Jobsian]

Moreover, if it ever threatens to go as far as the small claims court, time and again I've seen big companies relent as the cost of them defending their case would typically outweigh replacing the customer's product.

 

[Jobsian]

It is only 5-6 years if that is a reasonable amount of time for the product. If you bought a Tesco value toaster and it broke after 1.5 years I don't believe you'd have a leg to stand on.

True (though technically still probably half a leg )

The problem is when people here are buying macbook pros for £1-2,000 and think they don't have a leg to stand on after 12 months. Not so.

 

[Eraserhead]

True (though technically still probably half a leg )

The problem is when people here are buying macbook pros for £1-2,000 and think they don't have a leg to stand on after 12 months. Not so.

I agree, a £1000 MacBook you'd expect to last 5 years or so.

 

[Jobsian]

You have six years to make a claim for faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; in Scotland you have five years.

That means you have up to 6 or 5 years to prove that the unit was faulty when it arrived. So for example, you get a screen with a crack in it, you have 6 or 5 years to make a claim on that. But obviously, Apple replaces it much faster than this.

Ok so under that interpretation the consumer could claim the trackpad broke after 9 months and they choose only now after 4 years to make a claim for repair. How could Apple or any retailer disprove this?

In order to make the claim you would have to go to court, most likely small claims court, and I'm sure you know about lying in court.



This means damages for the original defect, not for something that happens after your goods arrive in perfect condition. The whole point of the Act is to protect consumers from being given faulty goods or goods that do not do what they say they do.



It is useful if it is interpreted and used correctly and in good time.

It amazes me how poor the interpretation of this law is. I have been studying English law for 2 years already, and I'm about to start a LLB. But seriously, you don't have to be a practising solicitor to work this out, it's common sense. You seem to think that the law means anything that breaks in 6 years has to be repaired. How can that possibly work?

In law, you have to be quite meticulous with the semantics of it otherwise you have constructed your own tomb.

That means you have up to 6 or 5 years to prove that the unit was faulty when it arrived.

Whence did you procure the last 3 words?

A product has to be, and I quote - "durable". That implies cover for faults developed after "it arrived".

You seem to think that the law means anything that breaks in 6 years has to be repaired. How can that possibly work?

Firstly, we're not implying exactly that (see above post). Secondly, even if it was, it's a fallacy of logic to presume someone's apparent misgiving with the law precludes its legitimacy.

 

[MacModMachine]

In law, you have to be quite meticulous with the semantics of it otherwise you have constructed your own tomb.


Whence did you procure the last 3 words?

A product has to be, and I quote - "durable". That implies cover for faults developed after "it arrived".


Firstly, we're not implying exactly that (see above post). Secondly, even if it was, it's a fallacy of logic to presume someone's apparent misgiving with the law precludes its legitimacy.

wow, your a smooth talker....




BUT STILL WRONG!!!!

you simply cannot read the law and make your own "judgement" and or "assumptions" ...and thats EXACTLY what your doing.

but when you decide to take this to court....please apply to judge judy so i can see her tear you a new one in court.

 

[AnotherFanBoy]

I enjoy it when people use quite impressive words in order to make themselves sound more correct.

In law, you have to be quite meticulous with the semantics of it otherwise you have constructed your own tomb.

3 ways of interpreting statutes; literal rule, mischief rule and golden rule. I'm assuming you are referring to one of the above, most likely the literal rule, which takes precedence above all others.

A product has to be, and I quote - "durable". That implies cover for faults developed after "it arrived".

So by your logic, you are able to claim for any faults, even if the product arrives in perfect condition, for a period of time? Who decides how long this period of time is? Does the consumer decide? Does £1000 = 5 years, £100 = 6 months? What? Please explain.

I'm going to make a blanket statement, anybody who is of the belief that this law was here to provide some kind of warranty or whatever is massively mistaken. The law is purely to stop manufacturers from falsely representing their products in their ads or blatantly ripping customers off by selling them products which arrive dead.

I'm sure this thread won't die because there will always be people who misread the Act and come back with something else to add.

 

[Jobsian]

you simply cannot read the law and make your own "judgement" and or "assumptions" ...and thats EXACTLY what your doing.

haha

It's quite ironic that you wrote that directly beneath my quote, because these self-appended presumptions were "exactly" what I was addressing - AnotherFanBoy had written:

"That means you have up to 6 or 5 years to prove that the unit was faulty when it arrived."

These last 3 words critically alter the implication, alas they are but a figment and not based in the law whatsoever, not verbatim nor semantic, in fact the opposite as has been proven above.


Anyone out of Applecare warranty in fault calamity, do not be duped and dissuaded by the obfuscating ramblings of corporations nor their unwitting lapdogs, you are protected by statutory rights

 

[AnotherFanBoy]

I was referencing the following part of the Act

"• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale)."

Any intelligent person (which you seem to claim you are) should be able to see that "not inherently faulty at the time of sale" is the same as what i said when i said "when they arrived". Time of sale ~ When they arrived. Get it?

Also, please, don't buy AppleCare, pray your product breaks and then take it into an Apple Store. BUT, be sure to print off all of the awesome legal insight you have provided here so they know that you mean business.

Those poor geniuses will feel like crap when you and your razor sharp legal mind have finished with them.

But yes, do the above experiment, and be sure to report back to us with how it works out, after all, I'm sure it will be in your favour? Right??

PS (I'm sorry I ended up being that rude, arrogant jerk, I do try not to be, but when you have people who are so obviously wrong, it just hurts me deep down, somewhere in my soul, you know?)

PS PS It may seem like I'm questioning your legal knowledge, but I wouldn't dare to question it, after all, I'm sure you watch alot of Watchdog and more than the occasional episode of The Bill right?

 

[Jobsian]

I enjoy it when people use quite impressive words in order to make themselves sound more correct.

I enjoy it when argumentum ad hominem is invoked (I don't really)

So by your logic, you are able to claim for any faults, even if the product arrives in perfect condition, for a period of time?

This is not 'my logic' - this is logic with documented legal precedents. The answer my friend is yes!

Who decides how long this period of time is? Does the consumer decide? Does £1000 = 5 years, £100 = 6 months? What? Please explain.

None of the above The court decides. What might guide them (and has done in the past in court)? Examples would be manufacturers' literature and consumer groups.

And considering that previous consumer groups have suggested that £400 fridge/freezers should have a durability of at least 10 years, and even VCRs for 4, you're not insane in assuming that your £2000 MBP failing after 2 years has not met an acceptable standard of durability

I'm going to make a blanket statement, anybody who is of the belief that this law was here to provide some kind of warranty or whatever is massively mistaken. The law is purely to stop manufacturers from falsely representing their products in their ads or blatantly ripping customers off by selling them products which arrive dead.

It's not purely for that at all, this statement is another capricious figment!

 

[Macky-Mac]

Interesting post Macky, but the burden of proof that a faulty product did not conform to contract is quite easily met. .....

I'd say you're overly optimistic about how easy it is to prove such a claim.

When you say;

....If a product is faulty in some way without sign of trauma or meddling ..... then the rational conclusion is that the fault is a failure of durability for that individual product....

Then you're saying that barring misuse or accident, a product should last.....forever? woo hoo !!!!

But of course not!

The Sale of Goods act recognizes that products aren't expected to last forever. It says something along the lines of "the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory." That's a standard that's certainly emotionally appealing, but it's also extremely vague and as a result very difficult to enforce.

Unfortunately, the consumer is stuck with the burden of proving how long "satisfactory" should be since the law fails to do so.....and that's one of the greatest failings of this law and one of the reasons why the law has been a failure.

......

In the UK, making a legal claim for a faulty item isn't costly. You do so via the small claims court. Fees are typically between £20 and £100 depending on the cost of the claim (up to £5000). In fact if you can't even afford that small cost, you may be entitled to a discount. And of course you can claim the full cost back if you win.

yes, yes, yes, we have the same here.

But as the Sale of Goods Act specifies, you still have to prove your claim. Easy access to a court doesn't change that. It doesn't change that you're going to need to spend time preparing your proofs (if indeed you can find "proof"), you're still going to have be prepared to refute the retailers counterclaims, you're going to have to take time away from work to go to court, etc, etc. It's not just filing out a claim form and automatically getting a check sent to you. Ultimately, the fact that so few people follow through with the process shows it's not such an easy thing at all.

It's yet another one of those well meaning laws that really don't do what it's supposed to do.

 

[Eraserhead]

In the UK it should be fairly easy to win such a case if you take it to court.

 

[Jobsian]

Also, please, don't buy AppleCare, pray your product breaks and then take it into an Apple Store. BUT, be sure to print off all of the awesome legal insight you have provided here so they know that you mean business.

Those poor geniuses will feel like crap when you and your razor sharp legal mind have finished with them.

Not that I want to preclude you doing your own research on legal precedents, but yes I personally have already invoked the law, with result

Manufacturer's warranties don't exempt companies from statutory law. Not one iota.

 

[Jobsian]

In the UK it should be fairly easy to win such a case if you take it to court.

Exactly, if it even goes far (which many times it doesn't).

I do feel sorry sometimes for our west atlantic neighbours and their Giga-Lawyers!

 

[Jobsian]

I was referencing the following part of the Act

"• Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale)."

Any intelligent person (which you seem to claim you are) should be able to see that "not inherently faulty at the time of sale" is the same as what i said when i said "when they arrived". Time of sale ~ When they arrived. Get it?

As I've already stated, your implication to those 3 words was critically different, you wrote (with subsequent sentence):

"That means you have up to 6 or 5 years to prove that the unit was faulty when it arrived. So for example, you get a screen with a crack in it, you have 6 or 5 years to make a claim on that."

Your implication here is that the "inherent fault" had to have been detected upon purchase, which it does not (again, with legal precedent).