On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:35:02 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:


But proof that a phone has suffered liquid damage (or evidence of damage
in any goods) does not prove that the goods 'did so conform at that
date'. All it proves is the state of the goods *now*, it gives no
evidence at all as the state of the goods at time of delivery to the
buyer.

By that logic if the phone had been run over by a steamroller the
seller would be liable because they would be unable to prove the
state of the goods at time of delivery to the buyer.

The reverse burden simply makes life simpler for buyers in the first
6 months after purchase. In the normal course of events if a product
fails it is the buyers responsibility to show why it failed and that
the cause of the failure was present at the time of sale (grease left
off a bearing or whatever).

In this case the phone is less than 6 months old so the fact it
doesn't work is taken as evidence of a pre-existing fault without the
buyer having to prove anything. The seller has to show that the
phone did comply by demonstrating that the failure was due to some
external influence.

The phone worked for several months, there is no dispute about this.
It stopped working and the failure is compatible with liquid damage.
Upon opening the phone the suppler found objective evidence of liquid
within the phone. On balance of probability the cause of failure is
therefore not an inherent fault within the phone but the ingress of
liquid.
--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead