ChatterBank1 min ago
Is This Right ??
10 Answers
My mother recently decided that she wanted a new phone, so she went to the T-Mobile shop and bought a phone and signed up for a 12 month SIM-only contract - 2 separate transactions.
Anyway, she's had the phone approx 2 weeks and it now keeps turning itself off and re-booting, etc. She took the phone back and she's been told that because it's over 7 days, they won't replace her phone, but instead they'll send it off to be repaired. It does actually say on the receipt that if it develops a fault after 7 days, they won't replace it, only send it off to be repaired. They've given her a replacement phone for the time being, but is this the norm? I would have thought that a 12 month warranty (or however long it is) means that if a product develops a fault, then they are obliged to replace it?
Can anyone shed any light on the legalities of warranties and customer rights etc?
TIA :)
Anyway, she's had the phone approx 2 weeks and it now keeps turning itself off and re-booting, etc. She took the phone back and she's been told that because it's over 7 days, they won't replace her phone, but instead they'll send it off to be repaired. It does actually say on the receipt that if it develops a fault after 7 days, they won't replace it, only send it off to be repaired. They've given her a replacement phone for the time being, but is this the norm? I would have thought that a 12 month warranty (or however long it is) means that if a product develops a fault, then they are obliged to replace it?
Can anyone shed any light on the legalities of warranties and customer rights etc?
TIA :)
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gizmonster. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If an item breaks down/becomes unusable within 6 months of buying it it is deemed to have an inherent fault ie; present at the time of sale, and you are entitled to a free replacement or refund
You'll find out everything you need to know here http://
Click in practise > these boots are made for walking
Also this http://
The store is wrong, demand your refund or threaten trading standards
The contract, however, will stand
You'll find out everything you need to know here http://
Click in practise > these boots are made for walking
Also this http://
The store is wrong, demand your refund or threaten trading standards
The contract, however, will stand
Ojread2's post isn't entirely correct.
The right to a REFUND (rather than to a repair or exchange), in respect of faulty goods, only exists up until the purchaser has legally 'accepted' the product. The length of the 'pre-acceptance' period, isn't defined in law. For many items it might only be a day or two (i.e. just long enough for the purchaser to get the item home and check that everything seems to be working properly) but for others it can be much longer. (A court has ruled that when a customer purchased a new car during the winter months they still hadn't legally accepted it when they later found out, in the summer, that the air conditioning didn't work).
The phone shop has suggested (on the receipt) that 7 days is a reasonable 'pre-acceptance' period, giving the purchaser enough time to check that the phone is fully working. A court would probably rule that to be a reasonable period (although if the phone had never worked during that 7-day period the purchaser would never have 'accepted' the phone and the 'pre-acceptance' period would then run indefinitely).
Once a purchaser has 'accepted' a product, they lose the right to a REFUND if it then develops a fault. However, as Ojread2 indicates, any problem which develops during the first 6 months after purchase is normally deemed to have come about due to an 'inherent fault' (i.e.something which was wrong at the time of purchase). Under those circumstances the purchaser has the right to a repair or replacement (but NOT to a refund). The purchaser can indicate which of those two options he prefers but the retailer may substitute the alternative option if the customer's preferred solution is not economically viable.
All of the above refers to a purchaser's statutory rights, which are entirely separate to any warranty offered by the retailer or (more usually) by the manufacturer. Such a warranty is legally a 'gift' and can be as generous or as restricted as the firm offering the warranty chooses. (For example, a warranty can state that a replacement product will be provided but only if you take your purchase back, in person, to the factory in China at 3am on the third Tuesday in the month, while hopping on one foot stark naked and singing the Peruvian national anthem backwards. Such a warranty would be perfectly legal as long as it didn't seek to void the statutory rights referred to above).
Chris
The right to a REFUND (rather than to a repair or exchange), in respect of faulty goods, only exists up until the purchaser has legally 'accepted' the product. The length of the 'pre-acceptance' period, isn't defined in law. For many items it might only be a day or two (i.e. just long enough for the purchaser to get the item home and check that everything seems to be working properly) but for others it can be much longer. (A court has ruled that when a customer purchased a new car during the winter months they still hadn't legally accepted it when they later found out, in the summer, that the air conditioning didn't work).
The phone shop has suggested (on the receipt) that 7 days is a reasonable 'pre-acceptance' period, giving the purchaser enough time to check that the phone is fully working. A court would probably rule that to be a reasonable period (although if the phone had never worked during that 7-day period the purchaser would never have 'accepted' the phone and the 'pre-acceptance' period would then run indefinitely).
Once a purchaser has 'accepted' a product, they lose the right to a REFUND if it then develops a fault. However, as Ojread2 indicates, any problem which develops during the first 6 months after purchase is normally deemed to have come about due to an 'inherent fault' (i.e.something which was wrong at the time of purchase). Under those circumstances the purchaser has the right to a repair or replacement (but NOT to a refund). The purchaser can indicate which of those two options he prefers but the retailer may substitute the alternative option if the customer's preferred solution is not economically viable.
All of the above refers to a purchaser's statutory rights, which are entirely separate to any warranty offered by the retailer or (more usually) by the manufacturer. Such a warranty is legally a 'gift' and can be as generous or as restricted as the firm offering the warranty chooses. (For example, a warranty can state that a replacement product will be provided but only if you take your purchase back, in person, to the factory in China at 3am on the third Tuesday in the month, while hopping on one foot stark naked and singing the Peruvian national anthem backwards. Such a warranty would be perfectly legal as long as it didn't seek to void the statutory rights referred to above).
Chris
Thanks for the replies.
It seems like the store is well within their rights in repairing the phone. This just seems wrong in my opinion. If i was to buy something and it developed a fault in the first few weeks (14 days in the case of my mum's new phone), I would not be happy with being offed a repair - I would prefer a replacement ....... oh well , the law is an ass :(
It seems like the store is well within their rights in repairing the phone. This just seems wrong in my opinion. If i was to buy something and it developed a fault in the first few weeks (14 days in the case of my mum's new phone), I would not be happy with being offed a repair - I would prefer a replacement ....... oh well , the law is an ass :(
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Technology3 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
