We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be
cracked so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that
this oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12
people. We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since
April 2006 and it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault,
produced a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to
provide a new spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive
wherever I had to collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure
an oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I
pointed out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera,
hoover, hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we
have still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to
pay.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

Thanks

Edward

On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

wrote:

On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for the
repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary because
the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen , it also
seems the retailer tried to sought the issues by offering an upgrade

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

--

On 2008-04-04 11:29:24 +0100, said:

We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be
cracked so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that
this oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12
people. We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since
April 2006 and it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault,
produced a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to
provide a new spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive
wherever I had to collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure
an oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I
pointed out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera,
hoover, hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we
have still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to
pay.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

Thanks

Edward

You have a case with Champs because they are the supplier and it is
with them that you have the contract.

The argument of fit for purpose vs. accidental damage is going to be
challenging. Does the manufacturer say anything about taking care of
the top?

I would have refused to pay, but now you have it becomes an issue of recovery.

You can begin by asking Champs for a refund. If that doesn't work,
then you can move to taking a small claims action. You then have to
decide whether you want to spend the time and money pursuing that. If
it's half a day of your time and no professional fees, it might be
interesting to do that. Otherwise for something that may not be a
clear cut situation incurring professional fees is almost certainly
going to exceed the amount of the claim, and probably several times
over.

On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for the
repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary because
the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen , it also
seems the retailer tried to sought the issues by offering an upgrade

No, the retailer sought to sort a different issue (broken oven) by
offering a different oven on which we had to pay the difference. They
had us over a barrel - we were committed to feeding people at
Christmas, and needed an oven.

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

**** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. ****.

On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen , it also
seems the retailer tried to sought the issues by offering an upgrade

I get the impression that you sell for a living. If so you
demonstrate admirably why the SOGA came into being.

wrote:
We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be
cracked so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that
this oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12
people. We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since
April 2006 and it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault,
produced a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to
provide a new spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive
wherever I had to collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure
an oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I
pointed out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera,
hoover, hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we
have still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to
pay.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

If the repair reinstated the original state - claim off your household
insurance. You have conceded that the original state was acceptable.

You cannot simultaneously claim that something is inherently unfit for
purpose and claim the costs of reinstating it to that state.

--
Sue

On 2008-04-04 12:42:33 +0100, Palindrome said:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?


If the repair reinstated the original state - claim off your household
insurance. You have conceded that the original state was acceptable.

May not be worth it. Many household policies have no claims discounts.



You cannot simultaneously claim that something is inherently unfit for
purpose and claim the costs of reinstating it to that state.

wrote:

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

**** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. ****.

sigh you didn't like the reply so you turned to insults and profanity.
So 21st century...

--
Abo

On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for the
repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary because
the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

MBQ

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

The fitting of the new item effectively finished that part of the
saga. I assume that from Christmas until the last incident you were
content with and had not raised any problems with the supplier?

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees.

Glass is very hard, knock two pieces together, especially if you catch
the edge of one and there is a good chance one will break. The fact
it broke when struck on the edge with another piece of glass isn't by
itself an indication the hob isn't fit for purpose.

I said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.

You can throw a chair against a double glazed window and it won't
break. Tap it with a sharp point and it will shatter. That's a
characteristic of all glass surfaces. It isn't specifically a
weakness of this product.

Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

It would be if you placed it on the hob, it isn't if you strike the
edge.

Do we have a case agains either Champs

Possibly, but not a strong one.

or Siemens

no.

You might find your home insurance better as it was an accident rather
than a design or manufacturing flaw.

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
wrote:

On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

**** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. ****.


Not difficult to see why you get into disputes with suppliers, is it?

With regard to the original question - clearly accidental damage, which is
what household insurance is for.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47f60e85@qaanaaq...
On 2008-04-04 11:29:24 +0100, said:

story snipped

I would have refused to pay, but now you have it becomes an issue of
recovery.

You can begin by asking Champs for a refund. If that doesn't work, then
you can move to taking a small claims action. You then have to decide
whether you want to spend the time and money pursuing that. If it's half
a day of your time and no professional fees, it might be interesting to do
that. Otherwise for something that may not be a clear cut situation
incurring professional fees is almost certainly going to exceed the amount
of the claim, and probably several times over.

I am currently issuing a small claim against a "well known large furniture
retailer". You do it on line and it costs £60 up front. You then wait and
bluff each other out (where we are now). As you say, interesting though!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

On 4 Apr, 13:27, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. *These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

The fitting of the new item effectively finished that part of the
saga. *I assume that from Christmas until the last incident you were
content with and had not raised any problems with the supplier?

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. *The hob broke. *The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. *The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. *But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees.

Glass is very hard, knock two pieces together, especially if you catch
the edge of one and there is a good chance one will break. *The fact
it broke when struck on the edge with another piece of glass isn't by
itself an indication the hob isn't fit for purpose. *

I said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.

You can throw a chair against a double glazed window and it won't
break. *Tap it with a sharp point and it will shatter. *That's a
characteristic of all glass surfaces. *It isn't specifically a
weakness of this product.

Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

It would be if you placed it on the hob, it isn't if you strike the
edge.

Do we have a case agains either Champs

Possibly, but not a strong one.

or Siemens

no.

You might find your home insurance better as it was an accident rather
than a design or manufacturing flaw.

Thanks. I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

Edward

wrote:

On 4 Apr, 12:14, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for
the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary
because the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship *or
components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen , it also
seems the retailer tried to sought the issues by offering an upgrade

No, the retailer sought to sort a different issue (broken oven) by
offering a different oven on which we had to pay the difference. They
had us over a barrel - we were committed to feeding people at
Christmas, and needed an oven.

Its not the retailers fault that the op is so clumsy

**** off and read the original post. Oh, and learn to spell and
punctuate. ****.

So you had to pay the difference so what , you had equipment with a
better spec , the retailer resolved the issue , no one had you over a
barrel .



Throwing your rattle out of your pram just because i disagree with you
is childish to the extreme .

--

wrote in message
...
We bought various Siemens kitchen appliances from a local supplier
called Champs which were delivered in December 2007 prior to
installation. On unwrapping, the induction hob was proved to be
cracked so a replacement was called for. The 2 ovens were installed.

10 days after this, the microwave combination oven went kaput.

This was on December 16th.

I rang Champs immediately who said that they would arrange for an
engineer to come out, but whatever happened they would ensure that
this oven was working for me for Christmas - we were catering for 12
people. We had been living in the chaos of house renovation since
April 2006 and it was important for us To Do Christmas.

The engineer duly arrived on Thursday 20th, located the fault,
produced a spare part, which was faulty. They would be unable to
provide a new spare part before Christmas. I offered to drive
wherever I had to collect the
wretched thing from whatever factory, but of course this was not an
option.

I rang Champs.

They rummaged around and then said chirpily that they could get me a
replacement oven. My relief was immense.

"28th December do you?" they said.

Relief short lived.

I pointed out that Christmas fell before then.

Eventually they were pleased to offer a compromise whereby to secure
an oven, I would get an upgrade. This included features I didn't care
about (like a grill, which I didn't want, the other oven had a grill)
but that was fine until they bashed on their calculator and said it
would cost us a further £158. Apparently this was a bargain. I
pointed out that I had spent about £3,500 with them (fridge, camera,
hoover, hob, ovens). Still, they had me over a barrel and knew it.

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. These things happen, I resolved
to forget about it.

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees. I
said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing more
brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.
Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one would
assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le Creuset, for
example, then a little pepper pot would be child's play.

I was told it would be about £300.

That the engineer's first half hour would cost £67.50.

I went into hysterical free fall prompted not only by the prospect of
penury by hob but by the aggressive attitude of the soi-disant area
manager.

Our bill is £191.98 which, although less than orignally mooted, we
have still had to pay and which I don't feel we should have had to
pay.

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?



Thanks


Hard to say.


Edward

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:14:27 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

wrote:

On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so which
one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for the
repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary because
the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship or components.

I would presume they paid under protest, without prejudice. Equally the seller
could be said to have admitted there WAS a faulty workmanship element, as they
reduced the cost considerably.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen

It may not be their *fault* but under SOGA it most definitely is their
*responsibility*.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob broke. The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees.

It is difficult to say just from your description whether your
assessment that the hob is not fit for purpose is correct. A sharp
blow with a corner or point of a hard object is capable of breaking
strong glass even when the blow is not perceived as having been very
powerful. A spring-loaded centre punch will completely shatter the
toughened side window of a car, for example, even though there is no
perception of any great force having been applied. It does not mean
that the glass is not strong enough to support heavy pots. The lack
of damage to the pepper pot (which is probably much thicker glass
anyway) means little.

I'll also comment that although the problems with your cooking
appliances were unfortunate, it is foreseeable that a complete new
kitchen installation may suffer teething problems that could cause a
holdup for a couple of weeks, and so IMO part of the responsibility is
with yourself for creating such a tight deadline. In retrospect it
may perhaps have been better to have made other arrangements for food
that year and arranged to "do" Christmas the following year instead.
I do not believe that the store handled the situation unreasonably.

--
Cynic

wrote:

On 4 Apr, 13:27, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. *These things happen, I
resolved to forget about it.

The fitting of the new item effectively finished that part of the
saga. *I assume that from Christmas until the last incident you were
content with and had not raised any problems with the supplier?

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. *The hob broke.
*The pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just
dandy. *The hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics.
*But apparently despite the item clearly not being Fit For
Purpose if its integrity was so very fragile, this was not
covered under their guarantees.

Glass is very hard, knock two pieces together, especially if you
catch the edge of one and there is a good chance one will break.
*The fact it broke when struck on the edge with another piece of
glass isn't by itself an indication the hob isn't fit for purpose. *

I said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing
more brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.

You can throw a chair against a double glazed window and it won't
break. *Tap it with a sharp point and it will shatter. *That's a
characteristic of all glass surfaces. *It isn't specifically a
weakness of this product.

Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one
would assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le
Creuset, for example, then a little pepper pot would be child's
play.

It would be if you placed it on the hob, it isn't if you strike the
edge.

Do we have a case agains either Champs

Possibly, but not a strong one.

or Siemens

no.

You might find your home insurance better as it was an accident
rather than a design or manufacturing flaw.

Thanks. I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

Edward


Toughened glass granulates when broken , most cookers that have glass
components use toughened glass

Did your unit granulate ?


It may be the case that a toughened glass top when broken may have
exposed you to live circuitry

Toughened glass is very suspeptable to breakage if it is impacted on
the edge


--

Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for
the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary
because the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship *or
components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge of the
glass top with a pepperpot , accidental damage is not a warranty issue
--

Mike Ross wrote:

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:14:27 GMT, "steve robinson"
wrote:

wrote:

On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for
the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary
because the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship or
components.



I would presume they paid under protest, without prejudice. Equally
the seller could be said to have admitted there WAS a faulty
workmanship element, as they reduced the cost considerably.

The seller replaced the original faulty item with an upgraded unit
presumably at a discounted price something over and above what the law
requires the buyer had the option of accepting or declining this offer
, wether they protested or not is not the issue they decided for thier
own reasons to accept the retailers offer of a better hob unit

The op then accidentally damaged the new unit ,prior to the damage the
op had no reason to complain

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails , these things happen

It may not be their fault but under SOGA it most definitely is their
responsibility.

And it appears the retailer has not only complied with all the laws
concerned with protecting the consumer but actually offered more than
is required .

Its not the retailers fault that the op accidentally damaged the glass
top

Mike



--

On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further related
problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by paying for
the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair was nessasary
because the damage caused was not due to faulty workmanship *or
components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge of the
glass top with a pepperpot ,

No they haven't. Placing something down is not the same as hitting
something with it.

accidental damage is not a warranty issue

We're not 100% it was entirely due to accidental damage and not some
fundamental weakness of the product.

MBQ

On 4 Apr, 15:09, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 13:27, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

I gritted my teeth and bore the pain. *These things happen, I
resolved to forget about it.

The fitting of the new item effectively finished that part of the
saga. *I assume that from Christmas until the last incident you were
content with and had not raised any problems with the supplier?

But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. *The hob broke.
*The pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just
dandy. *The hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics.
*But apparently despite the item clearly not being Fit For
Purpose if its integrity was so very fragile, this was not
covered under their guarantees.

Glass is very hard, knock two pieces together, especially if you
catch the edge of one and there is a good chance one will break.
*The fact it broke when struck on the edge with another piece of
glass isn't by itself an indication the hob isn't fit for purpose. *

I said that clearly there was a weakness if the first one arrived
cracked and then this went after a couple of months after nothing
more brutal than the marginally erroneous placing of a pepper pot.

You can throw a chair against a double glazed window and it won't
break. *Tap it with a sharp point and it will shatter. *That's a
characteristic of all glass surfaces. *It isn't specifically a
weakness of this product.

Induction hobs require heavier pans than normal hobs and so one
would assume that if they were braced for the task of taking Le
Creuset, for example, then a little pepper pot would be child's
play.

It would be if you placed it on the hob, it isn't if you strike the
edge.

Do we have a case agains either Champs

Possibly, but not a strong one.

or Siemens

no.

You might find your home insurance better as it was an accident
rather than a design or manufacturing flaw.

Thanks. *I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

Edward

Toughened glass granulates when broken , most cookers that have glass
components use toughened glass

Did your unit granulate ?

No, it split in exactly the same way as a normal piece of float glass.

It may be the case that a toughened glass top when broken may have
exposed you to live circuitry

Well, according to Siemens the broken hob had to be replaced due to
elf and safety, even though one can clearly see the electrical parts
through the smoky glass. As far as we were concerned, it had to be
replaced for aesthetic reasons as well - having spent a small fortune
on the kitchen, it would be dumb to allow the broken hob to spoil it
all.

Toughened glass is very suspeptable to breakage if it is impacted on
the edge

As I said, it's not toughened glass Jim, or not as we know it. Though
I'm not Mr Pilkington.

I guess my gripe is that if this is a serious piece of kit, to be used
in a real kitchen (as opposed to a footballer's wife's kitchen, where
they just use the microwave to heat up the pizza and the toaster for
the pop tarts) then it should be able to withstand the relatively
small impact of a light pepper pot (think Schwarz spice jar and you've
got it) being placed on the edge. Ok, I'd accept that dropping a
heavy iron pot from a couple of feet might be deleterious, but this
thing's got a bigger glass jaw than Frank Bruno.

Anyway, as the Merkins say, I'm just going to suck it up.

Thanks everybody

Edward

On 4 Apr, 15:06, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 03:29:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
But then a few weeks ago, I placed a pepper pot to the left of the
hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. *The hob broke. *The
pepper pot (small, glass) needless to say was fine, just dandy. *The
hob needed replacing for safety sake and aesthetics. *But apparently
despite the item clearly not being Fit For Purpose if its integrity
was so very fragile, this was not covered under their guarantees.

It is difficult to say just from your description whether your
assessment that the hob is not fit for purpose is correct. *A sharp
blow with a corner or point of a hard object is capable of breaking
strong glass even when the blow is not perceived as having been very
powerful. *A spring-loaded centre punch will completely shatter the
toughened side window of a car, for example, even though there is no
perception of any great force having been applied. *It does not mean
that the glass is not strong enough to support heavy pots. *The lack
of damage to the pepper pot (which is probably much thicker glass
anyway) means little.

I'll also comment that although the problems with your cooking
appliances were unfortunate, it is foreseeable that a complete new
kitchen installation may suffer teething problems that could cause a
holdup for a couple of weeks, and so IMO part of the responsibility is
with yourself for creating such a tight deadline. *In retrospect it
may perhaps have been better to have made other arrangements for food
that year and arranged to "do" Christmas the following year instead.
I do not believe that the store handled the situation unreasonably.

Yes, you're probably right. But as I'm sure everyone here
appreciates, building is almost as stressful as divorce, bereavement
or being on The Apprentice, and it's easy to get things out of
proportion.

Edward

On Apr 4, 2:18*pm, wrote:
Thanks. *I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

Edward

We've got an induction hob and it has had all manners of abuse and
nothing has happened to it yet. I have lost count of the number of
heavy pointy things that have been dropped on it.

Just out of interest, how thick is the glass on yours? Ours (a
DeDeitrich one) is about 8mm thick and the edges have a 2mm radius on
them.

I think you were either extremely unlucky in the way your pepper pot
contacted it, or it was flawed to start with.

My gut feeling for such an incident is that an accidental damage claim
to your insurers is more appropriate than complaining to the supplying
retailer. It's going to be very hard to prove that you didn't do
something unreasonable to break it unfortunately.

Steve
Steve

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

Ordinarily a fault that occurs within a short time is assumed to be
due to an inherent defect in the product, and it would fall to the
retailer to prove otherwise.

The OP has in this case however admitted that the damage was caused by
accidentally striking the glass top with a hard object. ISTM that the
burden would therefore now fall to the OP needing to prove that the
damage was due to an inherent defect rather than the retailer having
to prove it was caused by misuse - because the misuse is admitted.

I am sure that there are accepted standards of durability for hobs,
and the standard is almost certain to contain details of tests that a
design must pass. If the manufacturer can show that the design passed
such tests, any allegation of a design fault would fail. Such
standards usually consist of two different criteria - a force that a
unit must withstand without damage, and a (much stronger) force that
it must withstand without becoming unsafe. In this case the OP has
not said that the hob became dangerous, so I'm assuming that the
former force would be the standard in question.

If a design defect cannot be shown, it would then mean proving that
the particular hob had a manufacturing defect that made it less
durable than the standard demanded. As the part in question is
broken, that might be difficult to prove, although a forensic
examination of the broken top *might* show pre-existing defects in the
glass.

Attempting to prove that the blow that did the damage was less than
the force that the hob would be expected to withstand would be
impossible IMO. We would have only the OP's subjective opinion as to
how hard the mishandled glass pepper pot was struck against the hob at
a time when the OPs manual dexterity and/or judgement was demonstrably
lacking.

--
Cynic

On Apr 4, 4:20*pm, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails
It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

Ordinarily a fault that occurs within a short time is assumed to be
due to an inherent defect in the product, and it would fall to the
retailer to prove otherwise.

The OP has in this case however admitted that the damage was caused by
accidentally striking the glass top with a hard object.

Where does he describe it as striking?

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further
related problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by
paying for the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair
was nessasary because the damage caused was not due to faulty
workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its
not the retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs
fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge of
the glass top with a pepperpot ,

No they haven't. Placing something down is not the same as hitting
something with it.

accidental damage is not a warranty issue

We're not 100% it was entirely due to accidental damage and not some
fundamental weakness of the product.

MBQ

If you re read the op post it states that he struck the edge with a
pepperpot ,

As others have said the cost of expert witness will far outweigh the
cost of replacing or repairing the hob
--

On Apr 4, 4:32*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and if so
which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot. You are
damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further
related problems then she has little grounds for rejection , by
paying for the repair she/he has also admitted that the repair
was nessasary because the damage caused was not due to faulty
workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its
not the retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs
fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge of
the glass top with a pepperpot ,

No they haven't. Placing something down is not the same as hitting
something with it.

accidental damage is not a warranty issue

We're not 100% it was entirely due to accidental damage and not some
fundamental weakness of the product.

MBQ

If you re read the op post it states that *he struck the edge with a
pepperpot ,

FFS, how many times. YOU read the OP "I placed a pepper pot to the
left of the hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob
broke."

Which bit of "placed" are you (and Cynic) confusing with "struck"?

MBQ

Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:20*pm, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not
the retailer fault that a new item fails
It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs
fault.

Ordinarily a fault that occurs within a short time is assumed to be
due to an inherent defect in the product, and it would fall to the
retailer to prove otherwise.

The OP has in this case however admitted that the damage was caused
by accidentally striking the glass top with a hard object.

Where does he describe it as striking?

MBQ

he states that he hit the edge of the hob with a pepperpot , nowhere
does he say that a pepperpot was placed upon the hob

--

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:00 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?

The retailer would have done if they did a repair that fixed a design
fault - i.e. doing something more than simply replacing the broken
component in order to modify the design. Perhaps fitting a thicker
glass, or installing a rubber bumper around the edge etc.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:42:33 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

If the repair reinstated the original state - claim off your household
insurance. You have conceded that the original state was acceptable.

You cannot simultaneously claim that something is inherently unfit for
purpose and claim the costs of reinstating it to that state.

There is one other possibility and that would be to claim that there
was a pre-existing fault other than a design fault - e.g. a small
fracture in the edge of the glass or an improperly fitted top etc.
that made the unit more fragile than it should have been

I should think that it would need a report from a forensic expert to
pull that one though.

--
Cynic

On Apr 4, 4:38*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 4:20*pm, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not
the retailer fault that a new item fails
It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs
fault.

Ordinarily a fault that occurs within a short time is assumed to be
due to an inherent defect in the product, and it would fall to the
retailer to prove otherwise.

The OP has in this case however admitted that the damage was caused
by accidentally striking the glass top with a hard object.

Where does he describe it as striking?

MBQ

he states that he hit the edge of the hob with a pepperpot , nowhere
does he say that a pepperpot was placed upon the hob

Read the OP again!

MBQ

On Apr 4, 4:18*pm, stevelup wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:18*pm, wrote:

Thanks. *I think I conclude that induction hobs are probably a bad
idea per se, though I wonder why they can't be made of toughened
glass.

Edward

We've got an induction hob and it has had all manners of abuse and
nothing has happened to it yet. I have lost count of the number of
heavy pointy things that have been dropped on it.

Just out of interest, how thick is the glass on yours? Ours (a
DeDeitrich one) is about 8mm thick and the edges have a 2mm radius on
them.

Ours is much the same.

I think you were either extremely unlucky in the way your pepper pot
contacted it, or it was flawed to start with.

Both going to be difficult to prove.

My gut feeling for such an incident is that an accidental damage claim
to your insurers is more appropriate than complaining to the supplying
retailer. It's going to be very hard to prove that you didn't do
something unreasonable to break it unfortunately.

I know. **** happens.

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:37:47 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

If you re read the op post it states that *he struck the edge with a
pepperpot ,

FFS, how many times. YOU read the OP "I placed a pepper pot to the
left of the hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob
broke."

Which bit of "placed" are you (and Cynic) confusing with "struck"?

What meaning are you ascribing to the word "caught"? Here's a
dictionary list (I say it is definition 13)

catch /kæt?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kach]
Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, caught, catch·ing,
noun, adjective
–verb (used with object)
1. to seize or capture, esp. after pursuit: to catch a criminal; to
catch a runaway horse.
2. to trap or ensna to catch a fish.
3. to intercept and seize; take and hold (something thrown, falling,
etc.): to catch a ball; a barrel to catch rain.
4. to come upon suddenly; surprise or detect, as in some action: I
caught him stealing the pumpkin.
5. to receive, incur, or contract: to catch a cold.
6. to be in time to get aboard (a train, boat, etc.).
7. to lay hold of; grasp; clasp: He caught her arm.
8. to grip, hook, or entangle: The closing door caught his arm.
9. to allow (something) to become gripped, hooked, snagged, or
entangled: He caught his coat on a nail.
10. to attract or arrest: The painting caught his fancy. His speech
caught our attention.
11. to check or restrain suddenly (often used reflexively): She caught
her breath in surprise. He caught himself before he said the wrong
thing.
12. to see or attend: to catch a show.
13. to strike; hit: The blow caught him on the head.
14. to become inspired by or aware of: I caught the spirit of the
occasion.
15. to fasten with or as if with a catch: to catch the clasp on a
necklace.
16. to deceive: No one was caught by his sugary words.
17. to attract the attention of; captivate; charm: She was caught by
his smile and good nature.
18. to grasp with the intellect; comprehend: She failed to catch his
meaning.
19. to hear clearly: We caught snatches of their conversation.
20. to apprehend and record; captu The painting caught her
expression perfectly.
21. South Midland and Southern U.S. to assist at the birth of: The
town doctor caught more than four hundred children before he retired.
–verb (used without object) 22. to become gripped, hooked, or
entangled: Her foot caught in the net.
23. to overtake someone or something moving (usually fol. by up, up
with, or up to).
24. to take hold: The door lock doesn't catch.
25. Baseball. to play the position of catcher: He catches for the
Yankees.
26. to become lighted; take fire; ignite: The kindling caught
instantly.
27. to become established, as a crop or plant, after germination and
sprouting.
–noun 28. the act of catching.
29. anything that catches, esp. a device for checking motion, as a
latch on a door.
30. any tricky or concealed drawback: It seems so easy that there must
be a catch somewhere.
31. a slight, momentary break or crack in the voice.
32. that which is caught, as a quantity of fish: The fisherman brought
home a large catch.
33. a person or thing worth getting, esp. a person regarded as a
desirable matrimonial prospect: My mother thinks Pat would be quite a
catch.
34. a game in which a ball is thrown from one person to another: to
play catch; to have a catch.
35. a fragment: catches of a song.
36. Music. a round, esp. one in which the words are so arranged as to
produce ludicrous effects.
37. Sports. the catching and holding of a batted or thrown ball before
it touches the ground.
38. Rowing. the first part of the stroke, consisting of the placing of
the oar into the water.
39. Agriculture. the establishment of a crop from seed: a catch of
clover.
–adjective 40. catchy (def. 3).
—Verb phrases41. catch at, to grasp at eagerly; accept readily: He
caught at the chance to get free tickets.
42. catch on, a. to become popular: That new song is beginning to
catch on.
b. to grasp mentally; understand: You'd think he'd catch on that he's
boring us.
c. New England. (in cooking) to scorch or burn slightly; sear: A pot
roast is better if allowed to catch on.

43. catch out, Chiefly British. to catch or discover (a person) in
deceit or an error.
44. catch up, a. to lift or snatch suddenly: Leaves were caught up in
the wind.
b. to bring or get up to date (often fol. by on or with): to catch up
on one's reading.
c. to come up to or overtake (something or someone) (usually fol. by
with): to catch up with the leader in a race.
d. to become involved or entangled with: caught up in the excitement
of the crowd.
e. to point out to (a person) minor errors, untruths, etc. (usually
fol. by on): We caught the teacher up on a number of factual details.
f. Falconry. to capture for further training (a hawk that has been
flown at hack).
g. South Midland and Southern U.S. to harness (a horse or mule).

Idioms
45. catch a crab, (in rowing) to bungle a stroke by failing to get the
oar into the water at the beginning or by failing to withdraw it
properly at the end.
46. catch a turn, Nautical. to wind a rope around a bitt, capstan,
etc., for one full turn.
47. catch it, Informal. to receive a reprimand or punishment: He'll
catch it from his mother for tearing his good trousers again.

--
Cynic

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:27:41 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:20*pm, Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 05:15:14 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"

wrote:
The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its not the
retailer fault that a new item fails
It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new, unless
it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the OPs fault.

Ordinarily a fault that occurs within a short time is assumed to be
due to an inherent defect in the product, and it would fall to the
retailer to prove otherwise.

The OP has in this case however admitted that the damage was caused by
accidentally striking the glass top with a hard object.

Where does he describe it as striking?

By using the word "caught" - see my other post where I give the
dictionary definitions of that word.

--
Cynic

Man at B&Q wrote:

On Apr 4, 4:32*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 3:16*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Apr 4, 12:14*pm, "steve robinson"
wrote:
wrote:
On 4 Apr, 11:29, wrote:

Do we have a case agains either Champs or Siemens, and
if so which one?

The retailer. Goods unfit for purpose. Reject the lot.
You are damaging
your own case titting around like this.

She /he has allowed a repair so unless the oven has further
related problems then she has little grounds for rejection
, by paying for the repair she/he has also admitted that
the repair was nessasary because the damage caused was not
due to faulty workmanship *or components.

The retailer seems to have tried to resolve the issues , its
not the retailer fault that a new item fails

It is, nonetheless, their liability in law, on an item so new,
unless it can be shown that the broken hob was entirely the
OPs fault.

MBQ

The op has already admitted that he/she hit the hob on the edge
of the glass top with a pepperpot ,

No they haven't. Placing something down is not the same as hitting
something with it.

accidental damage is not a warranty issue

We're not 100% it was entirely due to accidental damage and not
some fundamental weakness of the product.

MBQ

If you re read the op post it states that *he struck the edge with a
pepperpot ,

FFS, how many times. YOU read the OP "I placed a pepper pot to the
left of the hob, and just caught the very edge of the glass. The hob
broke."

Which bit of "placed" are you (and Cynic) confusing with "struck"?

MBQ

well if the pepperpot didnt hit the hob it wouldnt have broken it would
it

--

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:50:49 -0700 (PDT), "Man at B&Q"
wrote:

he states that he hit the edge of the hob with a pepperpot , nowhere
does he say that a pepperpot was placed upon the hob

Read the OP again!

Perhaps you should do the same. The OP had the *intention* of placing
the pot on the surface next to the hob. But in the process of doing
that it caught (i.e. struck) the edge of the hob.

The only other meaning for the word "caught" that would make any sense
in this context is that the pepperpot became hooked or ensnared upon
the edge of the hob - which seems rather an unlikely interpretation.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:42:33 GMT, Palindrome wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

If the repair reinstated the original state - claim off your household
insurance. You have conceded that the original state was acceptable.

You cannot simultaneously claim that something is inherently unfit for
purpose and claim the costs of reinstating it to that state.

There is one other possibility and that would be to claim that there
was a pre-existing fault other than a design fault - e.g. a small
fracture in the edge of the glass or an improperly fitted top etc.
that made the unit more fragile than it should have been

I should think that it would need a report from a forensic expert to
pull that one though.


All too late. The glass has been replaced and any forensic evidence that
could do so is long gone.

It may have been bad luck and a previous heating cycle had left a
concentration of stress lines just where the edge was tapped. Anywhere
else could have been fine.It is more than likely that the stress was
frozen in during manufacture, though.

It would be interesting to tap the replacement in exactly the same
place. But shoving it on an optical bench might be more illuminating.

--
Sue

On 2008-04-04 16:38:52 +0100, Cynic said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:56:00 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

If the repair fixed the design fault - reclaim the cost from the
company. They have conceded that it required re-design.

The company being the retailer.

Who conceded that a redesign was necessary?

The retailer would have done if they did a repair that fixed a design
fault - i.e. doing something more than simply replacing the broken
component in order to modify the design. Perhaps fitting a thicker
glass, or installing a rubber bumper around the edge etc.

They would have done, but there's nothing to say that anything like
this took place or that ither the retailer or the mnufacturer has
suggested such.