Damage altered (201605-0007205) [2016] ZACGSO 11 (16 September 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZACGSO 11
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
- Posture
- Consumer Complaint / Final Determination
- Case number
- 201605-0007205
More details
- Court
- Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
- Posture
- Consumer Complaint / Final Determination
- Case number
- 201605-0007205
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Ombud found that, based on the evidence including the supplier’s report, photographs, and an independent expert’s assessment, the laptop did have liquid damage. However, it was not possible to determine how or when the damage occurred, nor whether it was caused contrary to instructions. Since liquid damage is not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect, the supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty. The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defect was covered by the warranty. The office concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
Court disposition
Complaint dismissed. The supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty.
Orders
- The supplier is not required to repair the laptop under warranty.
- The file is closed and no further action will be taken by this office.
02
Material facts
Parties
Complainant
ApplicantSupplier
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Repair Quote: ZAR 6,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Consumer Complaint / Final Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the laptop's damage is covered by the warranty.
- 02
Whether the supplier is obliged to repair the laptop under the Consumer Protection Act.
- 03
Whether the complainant caused the liquid damage or if it is a manufacturer’s defect.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The complainant asserts that the laptop's hard drive failure is a manufacturer’s defect and denies any liquid spillage. He claims the keyboard shows no signs of corrosive or liquid damage and insists the laptop should be repaired under warranty.
- Respondent
- The supplier contends that the laptop was damaged due to liquid spillage, voiding the warranty. They provided a repair report and photographs as evidence and maintain that repairs will only be done if the complainant pays the quoted amount.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008
Damage caused by liquid spillage is not covered by the standard warranty and does not constitute a manufacturer’s defect.
- 02
Consumer Protection Act, 68 of 2008
The burden of proof lies with the complainant to show that the defect is covered by the warranty and not caused by external factors.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Ombud found that, based on the evidence including the supplier’s report, photographs, and an independent expert’s assessment, the laptop did have liquid damage. However, it was not possible to determine how or when the damage occurred, nor whether it was caused contrary to instructions. Since liquid damage is not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect, the supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty. The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defect was covered by the warranty. The office concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
Obiter and limits
- The Ombud noted the complainant’s denial of causing the damage but emphasized that the evidence did not support a manufacturer’s defect.
- The office highlighted that principles of reasonableness and fairness were applied in reaching the decision.
Court disposition
Complaint dismissed. The supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty.
- The supplier is not required to repair the laptop under warranty.
- The file is closed and no further action will be taken by this office.
Source and reliance status
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Ruling
Our ref: 201605-0007205
16 September 2016
Summary of your complaint
The complainant purchased a laptop from the supplier in November 2015. Five months later the laptop displayed an error message when the complainant switched it on.
The complainant returned the laptop to the supplier for them to check it.
The supplier advised that there is spillage on the laptop and the complainant will have to pay R6000.00 for repairs.
The laptop is still under warranty and the supplier is not willing to assist with the repairs. The complainant also denies spilling
anything on the laptop.
The complainant wants his laptop repaired.
Summary of supplier’s response
The supplier advised that the complainant’s Laptop was damaged due to traces of liquid on the device.
They further advised that there is nothing further that can be done unless the customer is prepared to the pay the quote that he was given.
Assessment
We have considered all the evidence presented by both the complainant and the supplier and advise as follows:
The supplier advised that the warranty is voided due to water damage visible in the Laptop. The supplier provided us with a copy of the repair report and photos.
As per the below pictures it appears that the laptop does have liquid damage:
NB: PLEASE CONSULT THE PFR FOR THE IMAGES
The complainant is unhappy with this response according to the complainant the laptop’s hard drive is not working and this is a manufacturer’s defect. The complainant is also adamant that he never spilled anything on the laptop. He believes that this is proved by the fact that the keyboard shows no corrosive or liquid damage.
Our office decided to get an independent third party who specialises in damaged laptops to look at the facts and evidence provided for the damaged laptop. This was done by Joe Berinato from ItalVideo. In terms of his response the laptop does have water damaged. He explained that liquid spillage on electronics damages components and impacts on the functionality of the boards, kindly see attach report.
While we take note that the complainant denies causing any such damage we are however not able to determine how and when such damage was caused.
From the evidence it is clear that the laptop does have liquid damage but how it was caused we do not know.
On a balance of probabilities we can therefore not conclude how exactly the water damage was caused and if the goods were altered contrary to the instructions. This type of damaged is however not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect. We are therefore unable to instruct the supplier to repair the laptop.
Based on the facts of this case, the information and evidence furnished to this office and on the principles of reasonableness and fairness, there is no reasonable prospect of this office making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
We regret that we cannot be of assistance and confirm that our file has been closed.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.