On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:15:06 +0100, Peter Parry put finger to keyboard
and typed:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:40:04 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

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

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.

"The phone has fitted as standard a chemical indicator which turns
red in the presences of aqueous liquids. It requires liquid, not
merely moisture to do so. When the phone was inspected the liquid
detectors were red, indicating that an aqueous liquid had been
present and this is the most likely cause of the failure"

They have already told the buyer that. What other evidence do you
think is necessary?

Either a photograph of said red detectors, or returning the phone to
the customer so that the customer can see it for himself.

Anyone can say that they've inspected a phone and found evidence of
mistreatment. But the customer is under no obligation to accept that
claim unless he can see the same evidence for himself. If he's not
satisfied with the response, he can assert his rights un the SoGA and,
if necessary go to court to enforce them. It would then be up to the
supplier to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that mistreatment,
in the form of liquid ingress, was the most likely cause of failure.

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Every whisper, every waking hour"