View Single Post
Posts: 6 | Thanked: 22 times | Joined on Aug 2011 @ UK
#7
Hi,

I'm the guy mentioned in IRC. I got a new N900 from Nokia last week. They initially sent back an N8 to the care point, then tried offering an E7 whem I said that was unsuitable. When I refused that as well, it was escalated to another department. When I explained [see later in this post] to them, it was referred to their manager, who found an N900 and sent it to me by next-day courier.

It's actually pretty simple. N900s bought in the UK are covered by both the sale of goods act (with the retailer) and a unilateral warranty that Nokia Corporation (the care line people) offer.

The warranty is here:
http://europe.nokia.com/support/repa...mited-warranty

Relevant point:

"[Nokia] will in a commercially reasonable time remedy defects in materials, design and workmanship free of charge by repairing or, should Nokia in its discretion deem it necessary, replacing the Product in accordance with this Limited Warranty"

Nowhere in the warranty does it state that the choice of replacement is at Nokia's discretion, and with good reason.

Towards the end, it also states:

"Nokia´s liability shall be limited to the purchase value of the Product"

Now, you could claim under either the SoGA or the warranty (but not both at the same time) for the defect. Since the phone is with nokia, you're being covered by the warranty at the moment. That means that the terms above apply, in addition to any other rights you may have.

The important term is "replacement". Does an E7 replace an N900? It's about the same price, it's true, but it runs Symbian,not Maemo, and the screen is a lower resolution. Those two points strongly weight against it.

Thought experiment: would you accept a newer washing machine that would cost the same as your older washer-dryer, as a replacement for a washer-drier? Or would you argue that the lack of "drier" functionality makes it not a replacement, and demand that the replacement be capable of dryinh as well as washing?

If the company refuses, and continues to refuse, beyond the "commerically reasonable timescale", to respect the terms of the warranty, you can issue a case in the small claims court (IANAL disclaimer: this is cheap and easy to do, but don't do it unless you personally think you have a good chance of winning) for the cost of a new N900 (that maximum liability mentioned). If you win, you get it, even if the small claims have to send bailiffs around to Nokia's HQ to get it. If you lose, you're left with a small amount of court costs to pay, and Nokia's original suggested remedy - an E7.

However, as the escalations guy said - once I'd explained all this to him and linked him to his own warranty text - "you're completely in the right, and I won't try to argue with you. I'll try to get you an N900 as soon as possible". We amicably agreed that a month from the start of me handing my phone in to them (3 weeks of that was already gone by then) would be the limits of "commerically reasonable", as I said, I got a new N900 well within that timescale.

I don't get why people let companies short-change them. This is a very simple warranty, and Nokia should be honouring it. If you want an N900, and not a new E7 (and that includes if you're thinking of selling the E7 to get an N900), force Nokia to uphold the agreement they made with you. They're not doing you a favour if they send you back an N900 - they're fulfilling the bare minimum they said they would do when you bought the phone from them.

Hope that helps, anyway.
 

The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to lupine For This Useful Post: