New iPhone 3G winging its way to me...

[ArmitageShanker]

Just a quick update for those who asked me to post an update when I had anything to report.

After having written a letter to O2 stating my case (that I believed that under the Sale of Goods Act I was entitled to a repair or to a replacement iPhone 3G) they called me back to say that they "weren't willing to 'overturn Apple's decision' not to repair or replace my phone free of charge".

I pointed out to them that it wasn't Apple's decision to make since the phone was out of warranty and at that point the bloke's argument crumbled. I was quite amazed how uninformed on consumer legislation it is possible for someone to be if they are working in a department where they must deal daily with cases such as mine.

So, 2 minutes of stating my case very clearly and firmly (and advising that if I didn't get the outcome I was expecting then the next step for me was to begin a County Court claim) resulted in the O2 rep agreeing to send me out a new handset which is arriving on Tuesday. I've already received the stamped, addressed jiffy bag for sending back the old handset but I'll wait until Tuesday before sending it off.

Oh, a link to my original post can be found here.

 

[chrisperro]

NICE!
I agree that the handset should last the duration of the contract, enjoy you new phone!

 

[After G]

Always good to hear about the little guy getting his due.

 

[army91c]

Kick butt!! I told you to go for it and You came out on top. For all of the poo talkers that were telling you that you had no chance.... In your face suckers!! Way to stand up for yourself.

I wonder how many of the nay sayers are going to come in here and give ya an ada boy not admitting they were one of the crap talkers..... lots I bet.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Thanks for your words of support, guys - it's good to see that in amongst the doey-eyed disciples on here there are those who have a sense of perspective and who realise that the big corporations still have to abide by the rules. Naturally, they are going to try their luck as they know from experience that most punters will fold owing to their ignorance on consumer law or their lack of inclination to stand up for their rights but I hope that my tale can be an example to anyone else out there who fancies daring to get their dues.

 

[JDee]

Liar.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Liar.

You keep believing that if you like, fanboi. There's not much I can do to prove otherwise unless you have any ideas?

The best I can do for now is to write here the address on the jiffy bag that I've been supplied with by O2 for sending back the old handset in the hope that someone connected to O2 on here can corroborate that the address is correct. I've also transcribed the text of the covering letter:

Freepost RRJ-KHCH-HZHS
Returns Department
PO Box 88
Leeds
LS88 1XL

The covering letter read as follows:

Complaint Review Service
PO Box 302
Dunstable
LU6 9GN

Phone: 0845 330 0684
Fax: 0870 600 2402​

21/05/2010

Dear Mr Xxxxx

Further to the resolution we agreed, please return your phone using the enclosed, pre-paid jiffy bag. Please retain your proof of postage in case we don't receive the phone back.

As phones are valuable, we'll need to apply a charge of £50 to your account if it is not returned to us within 14 days of the date of this letter.

If you have any queries, please call us on 0845 330 0683. We're available from 8am to 6.30om, Monday to Friday.

Yours sincerely

Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Complaint Review Service

Feel free to keep on calling me a liar, though - your ill-judged opinion will mean nothing to me when I'm happily restoring my backup onto my new phone on Tuesday evening...

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-gb; Nexus One Build/FRF50) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

Well done! Glad your efforts paid off.

 

[alex86ws]

Firstly congrats on the new phone, you are completely within your rights.
Right after reading the original thread, the complete ignorance and arrogance of some of people commenting who believed that their domestic law was valid worldwide stunned me.

Therefore I wanted to summarise my take on the situation. (i have a law degree)

1. The law of country where the contract is formed and accepted is the governing law.

This was an English man in England contracting with a company trading(o2 in this case, but perhaps Apple in a third party contract but that would get complicated) in England.
English Law (and EU law) is the governing law.

2. Sale of Goods Act 1979 - this is still valid and are implied terms into every contract formed for the sale of goods. It has not been "dragged" up as one poster said.
The act states:

(2A)For the purposes of this Act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.

(2B)For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods—
(a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b)appearance and finish,
(c)freedom from minor defects,
(d)safety, and
(e)durability.
the important aspects are above in red, fit for purpose and that price is taken into consideration

the price is £350-550, this is a lot of money. a reasonable man (English subjective test) would expect the item to last for a reasonable period of time.
to pay £550 and for it to last just 1 year(warranty length) is ridiculous, the same for a £800 television.

However a 50p biro that lasted 1 month. Reasonable

Second aspect is fit for purpose, without getting too complex, the contract was formed with the service contract to allow performance of this contract. The purpose of the phone is to use it on the 18 month contract. Therefore the phone should reasonably be expected to work long enough to allow use of the service plan for the full length. The fact that the phone is also supplied with 24 months contract suggests that it would be reasonable to expect the phone to last 2 years how ever bought (payg included)

3. just to say that the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 are implied into every contract formed for goods, therefore it does not matter if they are not mentioned in contract or there are words limiting to 12month warranty.
I could supply supporting case law to these arguments but that would take about an hour and i can’t be bothered when dealing with some Americans who can’t believe that their law doesn’t rule all.
In my opinion Apple Care is unneeded in this country, it just a way of making more money.

Lastly please listen sometimes, about 10 times it was stated that the small claims court is cheap to do but still people commented that it’ll cost more than the phone. You can represent yourself, it costs about £80 and each side pay their own costs. And more importantly it will never go to court because o2 won’t go because their lawyers know they don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

[sparkie1984]

im pleased for you mate, the little guy wins for a change


hold the phone........


the EU have done something to help us

wowzers, theres me thinking they were just a big fat leech munching on our bank account and telling us how to run our country

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Thanks again, ladies and gents. Hilarious that the nay-sayers are giving this thread a wide berth in the light of their previous inclination to pass judgement on a subject about which they were evidently so ill-informed.

alex86ws - I agree with you entirely except that my arguement, should it ever have reached the County Court, would have been based on item (e) in your list - durability. To my mind, the phone should be durable enough to remain fault-free for the duration of the contract so long as it has been properly cared for. My phone is in immaculate condition and has been properly cared for so I think a judge would have agreed with me. That O2 agreed to agreed to a replacement suggests they think the same.

sparkie1984 - the Sale of Goods Act isn't a part of EU legislation so don't go getting too excited! Don't worry though - I see the French farmers were out in force protesting in Paris again this weekend so there's plenty more leeching to be done...

 

[thelatinist]

Hilarious that the nay-sayers are giving this thread a wide berth in the light of their previous inclination to pass judgement on a subject about which they were evidently so ill-informed.

You have proved nothing. That the CSR in question was willing to send you a phone to get rid of you does not prove that you have a valid legal argument. Indeed, what exactly do you think qualifies an underpaid phone bank operator to evaluate your legal case? All you have proved is that, as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[Spud1]

Well done for that mate - this situation is one of the reasons I am actually glad to still live in the UK..the sales of goods act is a huge thing that you miss out on in the rest of the world (especially the USA), and it saved me before on mobile phones..i missed your original thread but I went through a similar experience with 3.

Bought a nokia N73 from them on an 18 month contract..phone broke after 14 months, and they wanted to charge me £100 to replace it. A month of negotiation and letters back and forth proved me right, that in the UK the law is that it has to last for a "reasonable period", and any sane person will interpret that to mean "at least the length of the original, unextended contract" for a mobile phone.

I won, they replaced it free of charge..and glad you did too.

I think it's important to state however that this does *not* apply to PAYG phones and the like - it's purely the contract here that has gotten ArmitageShanker his replacement. May seem mad that the same device can have a different effective warranty depending if it was sold on a contract or not but hey, thats the UK for you

 

[AppleMatt]

I've read your previous thread and this one. Amazing how many non-lawyers are quick to give advice (i.e. condemn), even when there's proof in front of them. A quick Google would tell them the correct answer anyway.

Your legal argument was sound, your interpretation of the SGA (almost exactly) correct.

Well done!

AppleMatt

 

[mrochester]

It's nice to see the little guy win out against these corporate bullies. Really, Apple should grow some balls and guarantee their expensive, premium products for considerably longer, as standard. Even a £10 PAYG Nokia phone is guaranteed to last longer than a £350 iPhone 3G. Doesn't really fill you with confidence, does it?

 

[alex86ws]

This has absolutely proofed everything. again americans commenting on english law

Do you really think a CSR, underpaid and everything else you said etc, would have authority to hand out £550 rrp iphones to simply get rid of people...of course not.

he would have either known they were liable under the SGA or consulted their legal time who would have advised the same thing. because the guy was obviously quite clearly willing to go to court they had to admit their liability.

they may have said "good will gesture" so your happy and they dont actual admit liability so it stay a bit quieter.

armitage : durabilty or performance or both. it was take your pick. but in my mind it being a contract, the usual purpose was to use it with the contract for the contract term

 

[ArmitageShanker]

You have proved nothing. That the CSR in question was willing to send you a phone to get rid of you does not prove that you have a valid legal argument. Indeed, what exactly do you think qualifies an underpaid phone bank operator to evaluate your legal case? All you have proved is that, as the saying goes, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I never said I'd proven a legal case. I said that I have a new phone on its way to me. Well, technically, I don't any more, as it's sitting on the sofa next to me, but I won't digress any further.

Question for you, though, thelatinist.

Suppose you phone O2 tomorrow (I know, you aren't in the UK but let us pretend that you are, or at least let us suppose that you have a friend with a valid UK postal address, thereby allowing you to masquerade as a UK citizen) and demand a new phone from them, do you think they will provide you with one?

Go on, answer my question - grant me the pleasure of following your argument to its logical conclusion...

 

[ArmitageShanker]

I never said I'd proven a legal case. I said that I have a new phone on its way to me. Well, technically, I don't any more, as it's sitting on the sofa next to me, but I won't digress any further.

Question for you, though, thelatinist.

Suppose you phone O2 tomorrow (I know, you aren't in the UK but let us pretend that you are, or at least let us suppose that you have a friend with a valid UK postal address, thereby allowing you to masquerade as a UK citizen) and demand a new phone from them, do you think they will provide you with one?

Go on, answer my question - grant me the pleasure of following your argument to its logical conclusion...

Fair enough, you didn't want to answer. Not to worry, I'll answer it myself on your behalf. The answer is no, they wouldn't provide you with a new phone. And, to use your turn of phrase, you could squeak at O2 as loudly as you liked - they wouldn't provide you with a new phone for free. If it was possible to get new, free iPhone 3Gs from O2 simply by making a few phone calls and sending a letter, they'd be inundated with phone calls and their mailbags would be pretty bloated.

And besides, I wasn't looking to set a legal precedent, anyway. Rather, I was looking to get my phone repaired or replaced as I believed that it should still have been working at 17 months old. That O2 caved in, and that I now have my new phone, is all the 'proof' I need.

 

[boss.king]

Fair enough, you didn't want to answer. Not to worry, I'll answer it myself on your behalf. The answer is no, they wouldn't provide you with a new phone. And, to use your turn of phrase, you could squeak at O2 as loudly as you liked - they wouldn't provide you with a new phone for free. If it was possible to get new, free iPhone 3Gs from O2 simply by making a few phone calls and sending a letter, they'd be inundated with phone calls and their mailbags would be pretty bloated.

And besides, I wasn't looking to set a legal precedent, anyway. Rather, I was looking to get my phone repaired or replaced as I believed that it should still have been working at 17 months old. That O2 caved in, and that I now have my new phone, is all the 'proof' I need.

First of all, you look like a douchebag when you answer your own question. I am one of the people who argued with you last time, and am just as happy to do it again. You have not proved anything, take some pics of the stuff you are quoting. Also, as far as I can remember, last time you were talking about getting a replacement from Apple, which is significantly different to your carrier. I could be wrong but hell, I'm too lazy to check. Also, just cos they gave you a new phone does not mean you were actually entitled to it, it could simply be that its not worth their time to go to court over it.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

First of all, you look like a douchebag when you answer your own question. I am one of the people who argued with you last time, and am just as happy to do it again. You have not proved anything, take some pics of the stuff you are quoting. Also, as far as I can remember, last time you were talking about getting a replacement from Apple, which is significantly different to your carrier. I could be wrong but hell, I'm too lazy to check. Also, just cos they gave you a new phone does not mean you were actually entitled to it, it could simply be that its not worth their time to go to court over it.

Your judgement is so woeful that I consider your 'douchebag' comment a compliment - thanks.

Feel free to keep on arguing, though - doesn't make you remotely right, mind you, but feel free to carry on regardless.

What have I proven, though? I've proven that I was right not to listen to the nay-sayers. I've proven that quoting the Sale of Goods Act accurately is enough to get the phone supplier to abide by their obligation. I've proven that there are many people out there who wouldn't dare to hold the suppliers to their obligation, thereby make it worth their whiles to try not abiding by their legal obligations.

Since you appear to be a tad hard of comprehension, I'll restate my argument about whether or not it's worth their time going to court. If some random unconnected individual threatened to take them to court unless they were supplied with a new phone, and they had no grounds for justifying that claim, O2 would quite happily see them in court. O2 would win the case and they'd get their costs refunded as it would be abundantly clear to the judge that it was a nonsensical claim. That they supplied me with a new phone is all the inferred 'proof' that I need. I'm not going to take a photo of it in order to sate your peculiar refusal to believe me as there's potentially no end to how far you could take it. Taking a photo of a letter and a new phone 'proves' nothing, but then neither can I prove that I exist and am not a computer program that is trying to mess with your mind. Anyone with an ounce of sense, reading this, is able to discern the wheat from the chaff.

 

[boss.king]

Feel free to keep on arguing, though - doesn't make you remotely right, mind you, but feel free to carry on regardless.

You used feel free twice in once sentence. Just pointing it out.

What have I proven, though? I've proven that I was right not to listen to the nay-sayers. I've proven that quoting the Sale of Goods Act accurately is enough to get the phone supplier to abide by their obligation. I've proven that there are many people out there who wouldn't dare to hold the suppliers to their obligation, thereby make it worth their whiles to try not abiding by their legal obligations.

Since you appear to be a tad hard of comprehension, I'll restate my argument about whether or not it's worth their time going to court. If some random unconnected individual threatened to take them to court unless they were supplied with a new phone, and they had no grounds for justifying that claim, O2 would quite happily see them in court. O2 would win the case and they'd get their costs refunded as it would be abundantly clear to the judge that it was a nonsensical claim. That they supplied me with a new phone is all the inferred 'proof' that I need. I'm not going to take a photo of it in order to sate your peculiar refusal to believe me as there's potentially no end to how far you could take it. Taking a photo of a letter and a new phone 'proves' nothing, but then neither can I prove that I exist and am not a computer program that is trying to mess with your mind. Anyone with an ounce of sense, reading this, is able to discern the wheat from the chaff.

So you've called all of us "nay-sayers" out to reply to your thread in order to tell us that you have no intention of providing any sort of valid argument? What does it matter if O2 get their costs refunded if its easier for them to shut you up with a new phone. I stand my my opinion that you did not deserve it because you were out of warranty, Sale of Goods act or not. Clearly we are both fairly stubborn, and so congrats on your new phone, hopefully others will be able to circumvent the concept of being out of warranty as you have managed to.

 

[mrochester]

So you've called all of us "nay-sayers" out to reply to your thread in order to tell us that you have no intention of providing any sort of valid argument? What does it matter if O2 get their costs refunded if its easier for them to shut you up with a new phone. I stand my my opinion that you did not deserve it because you were out of warranty, Sale of Goods act or not. Clearly we are both fairly stubborn, and so congrats on your new phone, hopefully others will be able to circumvent the concept of being out of warranty as you have managed to.

So hang on, are you saying that the OP shouldn't have got a repaired/replaced iPhone based on the sale of goods act, simply because the manufacturers warranty had run out?!

 

[boss.king]

So hang on, are you saying that the OP shouldn't have got a repaired/replaced iPhone based on the sale of goods act, simply because the manufacturers warranty had run out?!

Not at all. Good for him, he got lucky. What i do have a problem with is his misguided sense if entitlement. His legal right to a new phone had expires and he still argued that he should get one. He had the option to buy apple care and extend his warranty but didnt, and then claimed that O2 owed him a phone. His attitude towards the whole thing is what bothers me.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

You used feel free twice in once sentence. Just pointing it out.

It's a stylistic technique called reiteration. Evidently it's lost on you but then so are several of the other points I've made on this thread so I can't say I'm surprised.

So you've called all of us "nay-sayers" out to reply to your thread in order to tell us that you have no intention of providing any sort of valid argument?

Well, no sort of valid argument other than that I have a new phone now, but why let a small fact like that get in the way of a bit of ill-informed fanboi propaganda, eh?

What does it matter if O2 get their costs refunded if its easier for them to shut you up with a new phone.

How is it easier? What could be easier than getting me to pay for some lawyers on their behalf to laugh me out of court? Either you aren't very bright or you are wilfully missing the point here. I don't suppose it really matters which - you're wrogn wither way.

I stand my my opinion that you did not deserve it because you were out of warranty, Sale of Goods act or not.

Like I said, you're ill-informed. This isn't a question of opinion, it's a question of legal fact. If you choose to ignore the Sale of Goods Act (perhaps because you are jealous that it doesn't apply where you live) then that's fine. It doesn't alter that I was legally entitled to either a replacement or a repair when the phone developed a fault after 17 months though. The manufacturer's warranty is, frankly, irrelevant.

Clearly we are both fairly stubborn, and so congrats on your new phone, hopefully others will be able to circumvent the concept of being out of warranty as you have managed to.

Agreed, we are both stubborn. The difference is, I'm the only one that's right. Thank you for your congratulations, though, and I echo your sentiment that I hope that others are successful in holding giant companies to account when supplying substandard products to paying customers such as me.

 

[ArmitageShanker]

Not at all. Good for him, he got lucky. What i do have a problem with is his misguided sense if entitlement. His legal right to a new phone had expires and he still argued that he should get one. He had the option to buy apple care and extend his warranty but didnt, and then claimed that O2 owed him a phone. His attitude towards the whole thing is what bothers me.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. You simply don't get it, do you? The legal entitlement doesn't end with the expiry of the manufacturer's warranty. The application of the Sale of Goods Act, and specifically the references to fitness for purpose and durability, is something that continues to apply long after the manufacturer's warranty expires. You can keep pretending it doesn't apply for as long as you like. You can also pretend that red is blue if you so wish - you'll be wrong on both counts, though.

I didn't buy AppleCare because I don't need to as I live in the UK where my statutory rights already provide me with all the consumer protection I need.

Thanks again for the compliment on my 'attitude', though. High praise indeed from such a lofty intellect.