Hi guys, so I am more than a little concerned about my current position and the prospect of being considerably out of pocket here. Very briefly, I purchased an iPhone 5 second hand from eBay months ago (please don't immediately think uh oh, thousands of people do this). For anyone that has purchased an Apple product in the past second hand, you will know the warranty coverage remains with the device (by its serial number) and not with the individual. The device recently became defective (signal issues) so I rang apple to discuss exercising the warranty (it had around 9 months left). Apple, after doing extensive troubleshooting/diagnostic checks over the phone offered to replace it - there is no Apple store near me so they shipped out an empty box for me to put the iPhone in and ship back to them. For anyone who hasn't used this service before, basically Apple send out a postage pre-paid (by them) empty box for you to send back to them with the defective product in - they then repair/replace then send back to you (for free so long as there is no liquid/physical damage). So anyway I did this, I followed their instructions to the letter and got a 'proof of purchase' which contains a barcode. Apple use Royal Mail to do this. After sending it back to them I waited a week and it hadn't got there. I reported this to them and they asked if I had a proof of posting, and I of course (and at the time thankfully) said yes. They said 'great!' and they then asked 'do you have an original proof of purchase' and I said I got the phone from eBay, would that do (proof of transaction etc) and they said no, 'this needs to be from an apple authorised vender' - i.e. a network provider or themselves (apple) - again I was not the 'original' purchaser of this phone. There was a bit of a pause then and they then said well we will leave it a few more days and see if it shows up. I am obviously now very concerned about the idea that I do not appear to have the required information/proof to be covered here. I may well have just lost out on an iPhone 5 which I think, tentatively speaking, isn't at all my fault.. It wouldn't be likely that the person I bought it from on eBay would have the original proof of postage, again this was months ago and I am not sure I could even get in contact with them, or they would be compliant, or that they were the original owner themselves perhaps. It is disappointing as firstly I am sure that the Apple warranty was/is tied to the device by the serial number (and not the individual), and that original proof of purchase was not required - and I am also disappointed that Apple did not mention this when setting up the repair, I even said I was not the original owner and they said thats fine and set up the repair in my name etc. I have also again followed their instructions to the letter re the repair (getting/retaining the proof of postage) - I even photographed the front of the parcel before I sent it (perhaps I was tempting fate). It was they that chose the courier service and paid for it, it should be on them to pursue a lost in the post claim with Royal Mail surely? I have consulted their terms of service (for the repair) and there is no mention of a requirement for the original proof of purchase. So this is a heads up I guess to I am sure the many many people that buy or have bought their apple products 'second-hand' and were thinking they had a full and effective warranty and that they would be covered in the above scenario, without proof of purchase. * They haven't outright said (yet) that I will definitely not get a replacement if it is indeed lost, so there is still a chance, but I think you can understand the fact that I am quite alarmed given what they have asked for so far.. Sorry for the long post!

I have been told that the shop are currently processing my complaint. I have just had some thoughts on the matter and I've done a little bit of research. For the bed head not being brass as descibed - I am aware that she can possibly rely on s.13 (must correspond with the description) - but I am worried that if she has seen the bed before buying, she will be unable to rely on this as I have found, "it is important to note that this section only applies where the sale is solely by description. If the buyer sees the actual goods before the sale then s.13 can not be relied upon." I must say that the bed she received was actually the one she was looking at in store. But equally I have read that if the "Goods which the consumer has seen if they are sold as answering a description", this will be good enough to satisfy s13. Does anyone know if this is a Sale by Description, and therefore, can we rely on s.13 - does the fact that she saw the actual bed she was receiving mean that we cannot rely on s.13? If it is of any importance at all, again, my grandmother has really poor eyesight - perhaps this may effect the matter? Please help again! Thanks, Rob.

Thank you everyone - That's great advice! I Knew they were trying to pull a fast one. If anybody is clued up on the laws/statutes that are relevant here - that would be really helpful. I don't like the idea of me quoting statutes down the phone/in a letter when really I have no idea about them lol! Thanks again - and yes if anyone feels they can provide further help I would appreciate it.

Hello there, I love this forum. You have helped me in the past and I am hoping you can help me again. My grandmother is 71, she recently purchased a bed from Sleepmasters. I should first start by saying that she has bad eyesight, so if this effects anything, please let me know. She says she had a good look around Sleepmasters and tried the beds out for comfort. The bed she liked best had a brass bedhead. She says she knew it was brass, because there was a large label attached to the bedhead saying ‘solid brass’. We now know that the bed is not solid brass at all (it seems to be a metal that looks cheap IMO). The bed and bedhead were reduced from £1000 to £500. She paid for them in full and they were delivered to her house on 25 April 2009. The next day her friend from next door came round to see what she had bought. She immediately spotted a large scratch on the bedhead. She also saw that one of the legs on the bed was extremely wobbly. My Grandmother is now frightened of sleeping on the bed in case the leg comes off and the bed collapses. I spoke to the manager, Mr White, and he was very apologetic about the bed. He informed me that the display card with the kitchen should have indicated that the bed was not brass. He says had meant to change the card to indicate this clearly, but had not done so, and unfortunately he had been on his lunch break when she bought it. He said that, because of the error, he was prepared to offer us a different bed for a reduced price. Mr White told us that Sleepmasters did not accept responsibility for defective furniture, but that my grandmother would have received a 5 yr guarantee with the bed. Mr White gave you a copy of the guarantee and suggested that you should contact the bed manufacturers, about the problems with the bed. You contacted them and they emphasised to you that the guarantee only covered manufacturing defects and not defective delivery. They said they would come and inspect the bed, but if the problem had been caused by faulty installation they would make a call out charge of £70. It seems to me like they are just trying to pass the book really. I would like to know if the law is on our side on the matter against Sleepmasters particularly – surely they cannot sell something that they say is brass and then it turns out is actually not brass. Please can anyone help? I would really like to know the actual legal statutes/case law that clarifies these issues. What I want to know is:- What does the law say about the fact that it is not solid brass, as advertised? Perhaps despite this my grandmother should have spotted this despite the display? What does the law say about the scratch? (like is appearence and finish a claim in itself?) What does the law say about the wobbly leg? (is it fitness for purpose or something?) Does the fact that my mother's eyesight is poor affect the fact that she may have been expected to spot some of these faults? Is it arguably understandable that she missed these things? Does the price reduction exempt the company from anything? Has too much time elapsed for us to make a claim etc.? Please, if anyone can help, I would very much appreciate it.

Hi thanks for the reply, I will definitely do that, do you know what statutory provision makes them in the wrong/that the risk is with them? So that I have more to say when I speak to them. Its just I was reading an article: http://www.rocw.raifoundation.org/management/mba/legalaspectsofbusiness/lecture-notes/lecture-17.pdf It states that "Whosoever is the owner of the goods at the time of loss must bear the loss." - As I have paid, I am the owner right? Isn't this correct?

Hello there, I have an urgent issue that I hope someone can help me with. I bought a table and chair set from my local garden centre and arranged for them to be delivered this weekend. They have since told me that they have been stolen and have only apologized - no offer of refund etc.! I am contemplating seeking legal action. I have researched the law around this and the closest thing I find is the Sale of Goods Act s.6 about 'perished' goods - does stolen goods in my situation firstly come under this 'perished' category - and if they do - where do I stand - it says the risk is with the buyer - which doesnt sound good for me! Please someone help! Bobby.