Brief cases: your rights to getting goods fixed

I would particularly like to see evidence of successful claims relating to lack of durability, and I know you and Dieseltaylor are very interested in this issue. We have discussed washing machines at great length on other Conversations, and it would be good to read about successful claims after the warranty period has expired.

There are plenty of examples of screens cracking on Sony Xperia phones. Likewise with Amazon Kindles. One problem with mobile devices, especially phones, is that they are often handled fairly roughly, so it is necessary to distinguish between fair wear & tear and abuse. Many phone users have a self-adhesive film over the screen and others have no protection whatsoever. Manufacturers seem to condone this by not supplying proper protective cases incorporating a screen cover, though these are widely available. I believe that in these circumstances the manufacturers should be designing their phones to cope with a certain amount of abuse.

On the other hand, it should be very easy to test the hypothesis that Xperia phone screens are cracking due to heat generated in use or during charging, since the uncertainly of abuse is removed. It would be a quick win for Which? if it could be shown that heat generated in normal use could crack these phone screens.

Thanks Patrick. I hope you can come to a definite conclusion – one way or other.

It is my understanding that the retailer would then claim from the manufacturer.

If you made something that the customer abused and you could prove it yes the law, in particular the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 would cover you.

TCC, one point that has not been explained, as far as I can see, is how retailers claim from manufacturers. Some commenters side with the retailer, on the basis that they themselves have to fund claims that are successfully made under the Sale of Goods Act. What a shame! They are the innocent party. Well, I believe they should, and probably do, have a claim against their supplier, so should not end up out of pocket. But secondly, they are not innocent if they sell you a defective product. They have chosen to stocjk that product that they sell at a profit. They have chosen to deal with that manufacturer. They are responsible for the way they have chosen to trade and make money out of their customers.

The obvious solution is for the manufacturer to take responsibility for claims about faulty goods, rather than the retailer. Current law makes it clear that the retailer is responsible for claims and not the manufacturer. The way round this is to have push for products with longer manufacturers’ warranties. Car manufacturers are leading the way and others are following.

Since the manufacturer has to pay for warranty repairs, longer warranties should reverse the trend towards building goods that are not made to last or be repairable. Most retailers are not set up to tackle repairs, so it makes sense to deal direct with the manufacturer. It’s what many retailers ask us to do anyway, even if the retailer is responsible for handling claims.

Bib1 makes an important point about establishing whether a fault has been caused by misuse. Under current legislation it is the responsibility of the retailer to prove that the damage was caused by the owner in the first six months and one day later, the owner has the responsibility to prove that the fault was present at the time of manufacture. Durability is not adequately defined. Even if longer warranties become standard, there is still the problem of distinguishing between fair wear & tear and damage due to abuse. Perhaps in case of dispute, the product could be examined by an independent expert. I believe that the independent expert should take into account evidence of well established design faults when adjudicating on a case.

While there is apparent merit in attaching liability to the manufacturere rather than the retailer, at least we can usually get hold of the retailer in this country, whereas finding out who manufactured something abroad, and then pinning them down through their local jurisdiction, would in many cases be nigh on impossible and not worth the candle. And does “the manufacturer” mean the company that put together most of the parts, or the company whose smart badge or label is on the front of the product? Retailers might moan about the liability placed upon them but I go along with Malcolm on this: it goes with the territory. Though it irks them no doubt, at least they can more easily deal with the manufacturer/supplier/wholesaler than the purchaser can, and in many cases they would have a way of making things awkward [through stopping payments for goods supplied but not yet paid for, or in the last resort terminating their trading relationship].