[NewsPoster]

A man in the United Kingdom has successfully sued Apple over a damaged Apple Watch Sport screen. Gareth Cross of Aberystwyth, Wales, was refused a repair under warranty after discovering a crack in the Apple Watch display within ten days of purchasing, but has managed to win in court, forcing Apple to pay for the cost of the wearable device and court fees by February 22, a total cost to the company of £430 ($620).

Cross told the BBC he acquired the Apple Watch Sport last year for £340 ($490), but soon found the fault. After Apple declared the problem was not covered by the warranty, Cross went to a small claims court, claiming Apple was breaching the Sale of Goods Act. After six months, the case ended in victory for Cross, after the judge ruled Apple breached the contract of sale by failing to fix the timepiece.

"I couldn't understand why they would want to go to court over the issue, but ultimately I wanted to stand by my consumer rights," Cross said in an interview. "The case did start to become a little stressful, especially toward the end with the prospect of having to attend court to defend my claim against what was the most valuable company in the world."

Cross currently plans to buy another Apple Watch, commenting "for the ten days I had it, I really liked it," but he may "wait until the next model is out."

[daqman]

I went to the BBC website in hope of more detail but there is none. Why did he win this case? The claim would only be legitimate if he'd opened the sealed box and found the screen already cracked inside the box. Otherwise a crack in the screen is not covered by warranty because finding it cracked after ten days there is no way anyone can tell if it is a fault in manufacture or accidental damage. So, I assume there is something missing here.

[dmwalsh568]

In the US you'd be right. But under UK's Sales of Good's Act of 1979 the buyer has a lot of rights that we find surprisingly generous to the buyer. Part 5A, Additional Rights of Buyer in Consumer Cases has some very interesting terms. I suspect that 48A subsection 3 applies: "For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above goods which do not conform to the contract of sale at any time within the period of six months starting with the date on which the goods were delivered to the buyer must be taken not to have so conformed at that date." So if it's not obvious that the consumer physically damaged the watch, then under UK law the company can be responsible as if it was a manufacturing defect. Wacky to us here in the USA, but it's there...although that law was superseded in October 2015 with the Consumer Rights Act. So depending on when the watch was purchased all I said might be moot.

[Mike Wuerthele]

Originally Posted by daqman 

I went to the BBC website in hope of more detail but there is none. Why did he win this case? The claim would only be legitimate if he'd opened the sealed box and found the screen already cracked inside the box. Otherwise a crack in the screen is not covered by warranty because finding it cracked after ten days there is no way anyone can tell if it is a fault in manufacture or accidental damage. So, I assume there is something missing here.

There may very well be, but at the moment, this is all that's public.

[SunSeeker]

Meanwhile, Australian man physically damages his Apple Watch face and receives a replacement with little fanfare after complaining to AppleCare "too easy to scratch"

No court case required...