Post by Peter ParryPost by SteWe've had this issue before, though only in the hypothetical until
now.
The German case involved the woman having easy access to her mother's
washing machine, if I remember correctly.
I don't believe so - but I've only seen a short summary of the case.
That is the best of my recollection from last time we discussed this
issue. Anyway, I would think it ought to be pretty obvious that she
must have had access to another means of washing clothes during the
month, even if that meant going to a laundrette (the costs of which
would be recoverable), or even washing them by hand (which I would
think would only be reasonable in the case of mothers who were not
working). No court decision could possibly stand, where the conclusion
was that it was reasonable for a whole family including young children
to wear unwashed clothes for a month.
Incidentally, do you have the case reference or a link to the site
where you saw the summary? I'll try and look into it again.
Post by Peter ParryPost by SteIt may well be reasonable to
say that a person ought to use another mobile phone for a month, but
obviously sharing a mobile phone with someone else is not a viable
proposition in the same way as with a washing machine.
As I've said before, people like myself, who use smartphones for a
great deal more than just making and receiving phone calls, could not
do realistically do without it for any period of time at all, at least
not without investing in a range of new equipment, the total cost of
which would almost certainly exceed the cost of the smartphone device.
The problem of course is that formally pursuing any "right" to rapid
repair or issue of a replacement phone will take many weeks longer
than the longest repair is likely to take.
Indeed, but obviously if I were in that position I'd probably just go
and buy another one the moment the retailer said they could not
guarantee any timeframe for repair or replacement, or if they said it
would be more than a few days. Even though I'd be paying full whack,
I'd be able to recover some value by selling it second-hand/barely
used, probably leaving £100 discrepancy, which from my point of view
would be worth paying out of my own pocket, but which I would also
seek to recover from the retailer.
As I say, I use my mobile phone for so many functions (diary, task
list, notes, alarm clock, satnav, email and internet access, music
player, password storage, file transfer, and probably more - all of
course on top of the basic phone and phonebook functionality) that on
some occasions I would not be able to suffer without it for even a
day, at least not without some sort of financial loss or significant
inconvenience that would match or exceed the cost of replacing it out
of my own pocket. Even tools and devices that do all the essential
things separately would take at least several hours of time to go
shopping and purchase, plus at least a hundred pounds, and then
several hours more to transcribe over the necessary information. And
when the phone was returned to me, it could take several hours again
to transcribe all new or updated information back to the phone. All
this would have to be fitted in on top of work and other personal and
social obligations.
By comparison, purchasing a new phone of the same type could probably
be completed within the hour, and a combination of automatic online
synchonisation and personal backups (which are, of course,
incompatible with phones of a different kind) would mean it would be
back to normal probably within two hours.
That said, not everyone is in the position that I am in, but many
people certainly will be.