|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
Similarly power supply failures often destroy other components (including drives and data) yet again there appear to be no cases where buyers have been able to claim for such consequential losses. It therefore seems highly improbable that a consequential loss claim for data recovery for a hard drive failure would, in the normal course of events, succeed. Fair enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
The line is drawn at the point at which costs have been incurred due to goods supplied not of satisfactory quality, but only to the extent that losses could not have been avoided by reasonable (i.e. proportional) prudence on the part of the consumer. Fundamentally your case is the one you have espoused before, that the buyer has little or no responsibility to follow, or even read, instructions and that sellers should pick up the tab for the consequences of any faults. You have repeatedly talked about manufacturers but you know full well they have no responsibility at all for meeting such claims, it is the retailer who must. There are two points. Firstly, are claims for consequential loss of hundreds or thousands of pounds on a regular basis on an item costing Ł50 or so likely to follow from the application of Hadley v Baxendale? That case is now over 150 years old but still lays down what gives rise to damages for consequential loss. Namely that the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. The two limbs of Hadley v Baxendale create effectively two claims, the first in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered ... arising naturally is usually limited to the cost of rectification or refund of the purchase cost. The second limb, of such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it covers consequential loss and may attract much larger damages but courts have long taken a very strict view of what is reasonable. Indeed the original case of Hadley vs Baxendale itself concerned a failure to have a backup (the claimant lost as a result). Given that vendors invariably include exhortations to do backups it is not unreasonable for them to rely upon this as a defence. Most people can't be bothered to do them is not an effective counter. Moreover, a claim for data recovery services has too much remoteness. It is reasonable that the supplier might contemplate a small cost for replacing the drive but there is too much variability in individuals needs and requirements to reinstall software, recover data etc for the detail of any individual case to be considered to have been in the contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract. How was the seller supposed to know what you were going to install later? Secondly, virtually all sales contracts include terms specifically limiting claims for such consequential loss, usually to the cost of the item. Even if a case is made under Hadley these limitation clauses effectively provided the second limb of Hadley v Baxendale with a cash limit. The clause limits the damages in the contemplation of both parties to the amount stated in the contract. A claim for greater damages than in the contract would therefore usually fail. Hadley is satisfied so long as the exclusion clause is a fair term. Without repeating the lengthy previous discussion on the subject which largely centred around your personal belief that any condition in a consumer contract is unenforceable as buyers don't read them it seems clear that in most cases these exclusions are either fair or few claims have managed to pass the Hadley second limb test. Claims for consequential loss after failure of an item have always been difficult and expensive to pursue and few have been upheld. it seems unlikely that one for data recovery where the claimant has failed to make any backups would succeed. That there appear to be no claims for data recovery which have actually succeeded seems strange if the chain of responsibility is as simple as you have made out and the cost to the buyer is so high. Similarly power supply failures often destroy other components (including drives and data) yet again there appear to be no cases where buyers have been able to claim for such consequential losses. It therefore seems highly improbable that a consequential loss claim for data recovery for a hard drive failure would, in the normal course of events, succeed. I really can't add a single word to that, an excellent summary Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
But since this is a discussion board, it would be nice if people actually laid out their reasoning, as I have, as opposed to simply stating their conclusion on the matter while leaving their reasons for that conclusion unstated. I mean, if everyone's position here is simply I can feel it in my bones that a court would not allow this claim , then let's have that made explicit so we all know where we stand, and avoid any pretense that posters here are actually wanting to discuss the issue. OK. My rationale is that any court which studied the manufacturers warranty material and took advice from ICT experts would reach the view that 'reasonable prudence' requires a domestic computer user to backup their important data periodically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
At the end of the day, a terabyte drive that goes down for mechanical reasons is just a paperweight. Get used to it. You only paid 50 pounds after all. But that misses the point. Just because I pay 50p for a hammer, I don't expect it to shatter in my face. If reliable drives cannot be produced for Ł50, then they shouldn't be on sale (because they are not fit for general purpose), or they should be a specialty item for use in specific applications (like low-value bulk data, arrays, etc). Certainly, the idea that unreliable drives should be included as the main hard drive in consumer-oriented workstations and laptops is laughable. I *want* to buy terabyte drives for Ł50, and I fully accept the 99.99% reliability associated with that. With a bit of targeted back-up and a RAID card, I now have data storage beyond my wildest dreams. Why do you think it's acceptable to sacrifice my freedom of informed choice to protect a handful of unlucky and/or careless people? Would you say that nobody should be allowed to sell cars until they have perfected 100% reliability, or that we shouldn't allow people to fly on planes until they are wholly crashproof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
The only question then is of the lost data. Probably many consumers just accept the loss, a perhaps a few more push it and get a few hundred pounds in compensation and leave it at that. I expect that is the normal way of dealing with these claims. I'd be interested in
... read more »
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
passing attempts Faulty PC - how much compensation is reasonable?
|
|
|
Indeed, although I suppose the question of the fairness of the term can be determined simply by the answer to the question whether the vendor should, or should not, pay consequential damages. Should there be any cap on the cost of consequential damages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
Favoured: 0
42-year-old Anne Quemere marched today from San Fancisco and intends to cross the Pacific. None kitesurfer have not yet done. 
