On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:35:10 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

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.

No, but it is for the seller to provide the evidence that the damage
is present. Simply saying that "we have looked at the phone and
concluded that it has been damaged by water" isn't enough - they need
to be able to demonstrate that to a disinterested third party if
necessary (eg, a court).

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.

The seller is claiming to have objective evidence of liquid within the
phone, but the seller has not yet provided that evidence to anyone
else. Until they do, the buyer is perfectly entitled to continue to
press his claim for a repair or replacement.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"Too sweet to be sour too nice to be mean"