Warranty period on replacement phone

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm open to correction here but apple do only give a 12 month warranty BUT I believe that you can get in touch with them directly and they actually give a 24 month warranty if you deal directly with them. I hate apple software so I don't have an apple phone but hopefully some iPhone users can confirm the 24 month warranty.

There's a slight issue in this case as it's the replacement he's looking for warranty on. Apple didn't supply the replacement.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's a slight issue in this case as it's the replacement he's looking for warranty on. Apple didn't supply the replacement.

If it's an apple phone wouldn't it still has a warranty regardless of who supplies it?

https://www.apple.com/ie/legal/statutory-warranty/

I'm not sure how this effects op but thought the link might be useful

The fault should have appeared before now if it was a manufacturing fault. Nobody is under any legal obligation to replace or fix the phone at this stage.
Small claims would be the last road as it's long and might not be successful, Get onto the networks customer care and then Apples if no joy. One of them should fix it. I'd expect the network as some of them will honour the 2yrs but you have to push them on it. Apple will advise when you call them.

If you look up the Apple support website you can check to see if the product has a known issue that they have a callback or repair programme in place for it. Unlikely I know but it has been known to happen.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

This is so often misunderstood, it's actually started to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's actually the limitation on claims that can't be less than two years not a guarantee of a successful claim within two years. Ireland's limitation is six years so the two year limit imposed by regulation didn't alter anything, parties are free to give shorter warranties, if reasonable to do so.

In this situation I'd have to say though it's not reasonable so I agree with the above posters, small claims procedure. They probably won't even let it get that far once they get the paperwork. Just make sure to get the company names etc. right by checking with the CRO.

Actually, the legal minimum guarantee is 2 years under EU law (this applies to the seller, not the manufacturer):-

https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/dealing-with-customers/consumer-contracts-guarantees/consumer-guarantees/index_en.htm

EU law also stipulates that you must give the consumer a minimum 2-year guarantee (legal guarantee) as a protection against faulty goods, or goods that don't look or work as advertised. In some countries national law may require you to provide longer guarantees.

This is in accordance with Artice 5 of Directive 1999/44/EC:-

Article 5

Time limits

1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.

The problem is that Ireland didn't specifically specify the 2 year minimum when transposing the Directive via the European Communities (Certain Aspects of the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees) Regulations 2003.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

I disagree. I agree with the interpretation given when transposing the directive. This issue is that Article 3 states:

1. The seller shall be liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists at the time the goods were delivered.

This renders the statements under Article 5 to be a limitation period, not a guarantee period. The issue can't arise in month 18 and be covered, UNLESS it can be proved it was actually an issue at time of delivery. Ireland rightly didn't do anything here as we have a six year limitation period.

But, one important point about conformity at time of purchase is that the product must "show the quality and performance which are normal in goods of the same type and which the consumer can reasonably expect, given the nature of the goods...".

If a product becomes faulty long before what is reasonably expected for the type of product then it lacked that conformity at the time of purchase. Yes you would need to show that you didn't cause the issue, but that is standard for any guarantee bar the first 6 months.

Also Article 5 states "where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods" then there is a right of redress, in other words if a product fails quicker than is reasonably expected within two years then it lacked the reasonably expected conformity which is expected at the time of delivery.

There are a few ECJ cases such as Case C‑404/06 Quelle AG vs Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände for example on the matter and they have confirmed that Article 5 created a 2 year right of redress under Article 3 and have referred to these as guarantee limits which are mandatory.

The ECJ has also held that Article 5 actually creates two distinctive time limits, namely a period of liability of the seller, and a limitation period. The duration of any limitation period is not contingent on that of the period of liability of the seller.

In any case it is worth noting that all products have a presumption of lack of conformity for any defect which occurs within 6 months, the European Parliament are currently working on measures (awaiting the first parliamentary reading I believe) to change this to a 2 year presumption meaning any uncertainty of a 2 year guarantee will be answered in due course.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

On a practical level a consumer would have to work within the current legislation which doesn't allow for a two year guarantee period. They'd have to exercise their rights under the directive which would, I believe, but am open to correction, require a case stated?

But there is already ECJ case law on the matter and consumers can also exercise their rights under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 in terms of fit for purpose etc similar to the Directive, bar the statute of limitations there is no time limit on the Act.

Arguing this in another thread and it has me thinking. As the two year period is not specified and directives can't have horizontal effect how does one establish a two year period in Irish law?

GM228 wrote: »

Many legal eagles mention direct effect, both horizontal and vertical (vertical can apply to Directives but only against the state and it's emanations), but STC, have you ever heard of indirect effect?

I did back in the day and will again now

GM228 wrote: »

As a result of the ECJs Von Colson vs Land Nordrhein-Westfalen(1984) Case 14/83 a court is basically required to interpret the provisions of national legislation in light of the wording and purpose of Directives to give effect of their provisions even when not specifically transposed.

Also see Marleasing SA vs La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 where the ECJ held:-



The ECJ confirmed this is required under Article 189 of the EC Treaty (Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community) which establishes that results to be achieved from Directives are binding on member states.

Thanks, sorry I didn't mean for you to have to go looking that up for me, I dug it out of my notes.