I saw one of the articles on this the other day. Of course don't know exactly what was presented in court but I have to think in my mind the guy cracked it. Unless he never wanted the watch to begin with I'm pretty sure he looked over the watch when he got it, ran his fingers on the face and base many time admiring it. Must have cleaned the face and case a few times in those 10 days. I'm betting there was no crack there when it was delivered.
I can't tell you how many times when I first got my AW that I caught myself hitting my hand with the watch on into doorways and such. Probably hit my wrist into things all the time before but wasn't aware how often until I knew I had a breakable watch on it. Fortunately for me (even with Apple Care+) I got by with no damage but even the sapphire can be cracked if hit just right. Apple advertised the "essentially" gorilla glass in the sport watch as
impact resistant not impact proof and which by all accounts that I have read about the material is true. I also feel if there had been some kind of imperfection in that segment of gorilla glass it would have cracked much more than that, kind of like how a windshield crack will spread or what you see on cellphone screens. So admittedly with little knowledge about his case IMO Apple unfairly got the shaft on this decision. Yeah it sucks to buy something new and see it damaged when you haven't really even used it but knowing how many times I noticed I hit my own watch face into things when I first got it, I just think he probably did too.
I do have to wonder what kind of defense the attorney representing Apple presented. Also did Apple
refuse to repair it for him? (to me should have been offered at his cost). I could see him wanting a new watch and them saying it wasn't a defect and was determined to be due to his wear and he not particularly happy with that decision. Not wanting to shell out for a repair fee, he sued.
[doublepost=1454535676][/doublepost]
No we're not. In the UK, we have the Sale of Goods Act. This states that goods bought from a retailer must be of "merchantable quality". In other words, those goods must perform as described for a reasonable time, otherwise the consumer is entitled to a refund or replacement. The contract is between the consumer and the retailer, not the manufacturer. Seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me, and not at all excessive for either party.
Sounds a bit like a Lemon Law here. In this particular case though I still suspect he hit his arm with the watch on it into something a number of days into owning it and cracked it. No glass product is unbreakable either.