999tigger Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 They initially informed me that the repair was complete by text. Which they later refuted claiming the phone is dead due to water contamination, which isn't accurate since the phone works fine, so they either fixed the phone under the terms of the warranty before denying they fixed it to void the warranty, or they immediately voided the warranty on seeing evidence of water contamination, which raises the obvious question- if evidence of water contamination is present, immediately voiding the warranty and any obligation to repair it, why does it work? Why are you giving the same information? Ive explained it to you and all the possibilities. its one of 4 just accept it for goodness sake. If you are upset then do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 Why are you giving the same information? Ive explained it to you and all the possibilities. its one of 4 just accept it for goodness sake. If you are upset then do something about it. What the?... When you ask the same question you're gonna get the same answer. I've previously stated that I'm uncomfortable with accusing anyone of foul play, you may have missed it when you were busy deducing the only plausible possibilities I must accept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 What the?... When you ask the same question you're gonna get the same answer. I've previously stated that I'm uncomfortable with accusing anyone of foul play, you may have missed it when you were busy deducing the only plausible possibilities I must accept. Just a thought ......... RootsBooster's phone mix up theory / possibility (post#31) is an angle you could use if you queried the shops actions and can be done without accusing them of foul play . You could also mention your daughter's insistence that the phone has not been immersed in water which is a good reason to think the shop have mixed the phones up . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 Just a thought ......... RootsBooster's phone mix up theory / possibility (post#31) is an angle you could use if you queried the shops actions and can be done without accusing them of foul play . You could also mention your daughter's insistence that the phone has not been immersed in water which is a good reason to think the shop have mixed the phones up . Seems reasonable seeing as I've nothing to lose. I'm just miffed about the warranty status. I'll give it a shot. Thanks Gamston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Seems reasonable seeing as I've nothing to lose. I'm just miffed about the warranty status. I'll give it a shot. Thanks Gamston. I've explained that you don't need to be. You are still covered by the Sales of Goods Act which allows you to get a replacement item, a repair or a refund if the item is not fit for purpose. This is quite woolley but would covered things that you would expect to remain working for a year. So if your phone develops another fault you can quote SoG at the shop and normally that's enough to get most of them to sort it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I've explained that you don't need to be. You are still covered by the Sales of Goods Act which allows you to get a replacement item, a repair or a refund if the item is not fit for purpose. This is quite woolley but would covered things that you would expect to remain working for a year. So if your phone develops another fault you can quote SoG at the shop and normally that's enough to get most of them to sort it out! He is in theory, but they will claim it's been dropped in water and it is not meant to be. It will be considerably harder trying to say the fault is due to it not being of satisfactory quality. He has also signed a ocument agreeing that the warranty has been boided, which is confirmation something has happened outside normal usage. Warranties tend to mimic SOG and then provide extras. If they are scammers and as the case with most shops they dont understands sog much anyway. Its like estate agents. They might give in due to the hassle or they might just say no. Pot lick and has very little to do with the actual law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The sale of good act doesn't apply if an item has been misused or suffered accidental damage because this would be unfair to honest sellers . Water damage as a result of immersion would be fairly classed as accidental damage . If the shop has faked the water damage or it simply did not happen then is a trading standards issue . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 The sale of good act doesn't apply if an item has been misused or suffered accidental damage because this would be unfair to honest sellers . Water damage as a result of immersion would be fairly classed as accidental damage . If the shop has faked the water damage or it simply did not happen then is a trading standards issue . I did say quite clearly that the water damage wouldn't be covered as of course that would be unfair, however any future issues not relating to the water damage might be. He'd need to prove it wasn't linked to water damage though which might be difficult. Can you take the phone to somewhere link MobileFunShop in Handsworth and get them to check if the water damage indicators are fine? If they are then go back to Samsung with that evidence and get all grumpy with them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 Not wanting to get carried away, but it's £15 you are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I did say quite clearly that the water damage wouldn't be covered as of course that would be unfair, however any future issues not relating to the water damage might be. He'd need to prove it wasn't linked to water damage though which might be difficult. I guess the manufactures believe and have evidence the initial water damage is going to affect phones in the future which is why they void the warranty . It seems fair to me the warranty is voided under these circumstances . ---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 09:31 ---------- Not wanting to get carried away, but it's £15 you are talking about. The warranty is the issue . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now