Peter Parry wrote:

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:30:08 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
wrote:

The presence of an aqueous liquid is not proof that it entered in
liquid form. The entry of humid air that later cools inside the
phone, resulting in precipitation of water by condensation, will
cause the presence of water that did not enter as liquid water.

Indeed, I have come across this, once. That was someone who worked
in a cold store and was going from -25deg C to +20 several times a
day. They kept their phone on a string around their neck so they
could answer it while wearing mittens.

The cumulative effect of
repeated heating and cooling cycles (as in day and night) may
result in an accumulation of a damaging, or at least indicating,
amount of water that never entered in that phase and form.

The thermal mass of the phone is far too small for diurnal variation
to cause condensation. If the phone was normally kept in a very cold
environment and then placed in a pocket it may occur but it is very
improbable.

In normal use no , but many people take/leave phones in bathrooms and
ktchens where they are subject to massive changes in humidity very
quickly , have them dangling round thier necks whilst consuming hot
drinks this will hav an effect on phones , even ansering them in the
rain , realisically you would think the phone manufacurers would make
the things more water resistant considereing they are for outside use

--

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 17:25:09 +0100, David Hearn put finger to keyboard
and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:
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.

A paranoid person would then say they'd exposed it to water before
returning/photographing it.

Maybe they would. It doesn't really matter either way, though. If the
customer doesn't believe that the supplier is telling the truth, then
the ultimate recourse is to the courts. At that point, it is (in
circumstances such as this, where the item is less than six months
old), the responsibility of the supplier to demonstrate that the item
was not faulty when supplied, not for the customer to demonstrate that
it was. The customer's paranoia doesn't come into it at that point
(unless the court sides with the supplier, and he then assumes there
must be a conspiracy, that is!).

Mark
--
http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Goodbye... And it's emotional"

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:30:06 +0100, Mark Goodge
wrote:

If the
customer doesn't believe that the supplier is telling the truth, then
the ultimate recourse is to the courts. At that point, it is (in
circumstances such as this, where the item is less than six months
old), the responsibility of the supplier to demonstrate that the item
was not faulty when supplied, not for the customer to demonstrate that
it was.

The supplier does not have to prove the item wasn't faulty when
supplied. They have a defence of showing that the application of
48A(3) (the reverse burden of proof) is incompatible with the nature
of the lack of conformity.

If you took your phone in for repair after the passage of a
steamroller over it the retailer would find it impossible to prove it
conformed with the contract at the time of sale. They would, I
suggest, find it very easy to demonstrate on balance of probability
that the steamroller was the most likely cause of any subsequent lack
of conformity and therefore S48(4)b applies and they have no
liability for the failure.

Similarly in this case - the retailer can show objective evidence
that the internal electronics were in contact with liquid and that
this is usually fatal. Any lack of conformity is more likely to be
the result of exposure to that liquid than anything else and
therefore the same defence exists.

--
Peter Parry
Hemel Hempstead