On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:25:04 +0100, "The Todal"
wrote:

Just to recap - are you saying that if any of us takes a faulty telephone to
be fixed, and the supplier tells us "this telephone has been immersed in
water", we should accept that as a fact even if we are not aware of it ever
having been immersed in water?

I'm not aware of anyone claiming the phone had been _immersed_ in
anything. What was said was that the phone was damaged by the
presence of liquid inside it. The proof of that statement is
provided by the chemical indicator which is designed for this very
purpose (and almost certainly other corrosion marking within the
phone). Whether the buyer chooses to accept that as a fact is up to
them, I can't see why a court would not.

How the liquid came to be in the phone could be due to many reasons.
It isn't for the seller to produce evidence of the occasion(s) which
caused the damage, only that the damage is present and probably
caused by the liquid they can prove was within the phone. That the
owner claims they can't recall ever getting it even slightly damp
(very few ever do for some reason or other) isn't hugely convincing
when the seller has objective evidence of liquid within the phone.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead