Waterbuoy

[Tranona]

How perceptive of you! My tongue was so far in my cheek it was poking out my ear! The real question of course is how the supplier would react if you went back and said "I had my Iphone on a Waterbuoy in a waterproof cover. It fell in and the Waterbuoy did not work-it sank and did not float".

I would imagine in much the same arrogant (or was it ignorant?) way he responded to Gludy's perfectly reasonable questions.

Note that all the "scientific" and "patent" claims have disappeared from their website, there is no "news" since 2008 and the wonder product can now be bought from various sources for as little as £6.99! Selling balloons to Tesco sounds like a lot less trouble than trying to con picky yotties!

 

[rotrax]

I would imagine in much the same arrogant (or was it ignorant?) way he responded to Gludy's perfectly reasonable questions.

Note that all the "scientific" and "patent" claims have disappeared from their website, there is no "news" since 2008 and the wonder product can now be bought from various sources for as little as £6.99! Selling balloons to Tesco sounds like a lot less trouble than trying to con picky yotties!

Hi, you appear to be thinking about the manufacturer. In consumer law the supplier is responsible. Youboat in gosport would be my first contact if the device failed. They seem to be a good chandlery and are always up for a deal. But how would they react when presented with a punter saying his Waterbuoy had failed and demanding £250.00 for his lost Iphone that only weighs400grms? THAT is what I am pondering. In my previous life dealing with the general public in a retail enviroment I would hardly have entertained a money back-or worse-claim without the defective or broken item. Not all of our fellow humans are as honest as you and I...........

 

[Tranona]

You are right that the first port of call would be the retailer, but you would have to show that he was specific about what it was designed to do and that he advised you it was suitable for your needs. Just picking it off the shelf and paying for it would not necessarily be enough. It is the manufacturer that is making the claim so the retailer would join him in any action. If manufacturers were not ultimately responsible for claims they make, nobody would retail their products.

Unlikely ever to be tested in court as even losing a mobile or a handheld VHF because it did not work is unlikely to be a big enough loss to make an issue - and the manufacturer would probably replace it with a new one to meet his legal obligation - difficult to claim for any consequential loss. That is why he is pretty secure in making his claim - unlikely to be seriously challenged outside of a feisty forum thread!

 

[Didi]

I would imagine in much the same arrogant (or was it ignorant?) way he responded to Gludy's perfectly reasonable questions.

Note that all the "scientific" and "patent" claims have disappeared from their website, there is no "news" since 2008 and the wonder product can now be bought from various sources for as little as £6.99! Selling balloons to Tesco sounds like a lot less trouble than trying to con picky yotties!

There is news since 2008 - just click to the right of the year (there is no picture)
It talks about the contract with Walmart this year for the balloons.

 

[rotrax]

You are right that the first port of call would be the retailer, but you would have to show that he was specific about what it was designed to do and that he advised you it was suitable for your needs. Just picking it off the shelf and paying for it would not necessarily be enough.

Hi, The highlights on the box cover all that. I did ask the forum about the restriction on concequential loss. An area that has been explored under the Sale of Goods Act with various results. As this device is aimed at protecting-their words from the packing-valuable items they may find difficulty in avoiding claims for what was attatched as well as a defective product. As I know from my days in the frontline of a service department of a major manufacturer you cannot write out consumers rights in a warranty.

 

[FishyInverness]

The following links should give fair understanding of how it works in the UK - The "PRODUCER" is responsible for associated loss for a defective product, and that loss has to be in excess of £275.

Under my understanding it's the Retailer who is responsible for repair or replacement of a faulty product, it's the producer who is responsible for that product causing further associated damage...

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/consumer-protection-act/
http://whatconsumer.co.uk/who-do-i-sue/

 

[davidej]

Jeeze.....its compulsive reading after the first page

25 pages!

I lost the will to live.

 

[Tranona]

There is news since 2008 - just click to the right of the year (there is no picture)
It talks about the contract with Walmart this year for the balloons.

Yes, but nothing about the wonder product in this discussion!

 

[rotrax]

The following links should give fair understanding of how it works in the UK - The "PRODUCER" is responsible for associated loss for a defective product, and that loss has to be in excess of £275.

Under my understanding it's the Retailer who is responsible for repair or replacement of a faulty product, it's the producer who is responsible for that product causing further associated damage...

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/consumer-protection-act/
http://whatconsumer.co.uk/who-do-i-sue/

Thank You!

 

[Didi]

Yes, but nothing about the wonder product in this discussion!

That's true!

 

[rotrax]

That's true!

I do find it mildly amusing that a thread about a potential warranty claim starts mildly disparaging the product! I purchased one on a whim-its less bulky than the two cork balls that would only just keep the keys afloat. I never imagined it to be a wonder product-after all its only a smaller version of a lifejacket.The technology is not mind blowing after all. I never saw Dragons Den and had only read what is on the packaging. I was amazed at the previous thread,like many others who came in late. I promise to post IMMEDIATLY should my Waterbuoy fall in the oggin with a full and complete version of what happened and if recovery was successful. I do agree that the replies from the Waterbuoy principal were far less than what was required and indeed asked for.

 

[FishyInverness]

I think it's just a normal reaction to people feeling someone is trying to put one over on them....the manufacturer did make a claim that was a bit "hard and fast" with the actual laws of physics and then gave some equally wishy washy responses when asked, by people who would actually be his target market, to give specifics of where he arrived at those claims.

If you act like that, then people naturally tend to get their backs up a bit feeling they're being taken for fools.

BUT...it wouldn't stop me buying one if I didn't have other methods that I find more suitable..

 

[Tranona]

I think it's just a normal reaction to people feeling someone is trying to put one over on them....the manufacturer did make a claim that was a bit "hard and fast" with the actual laws of physics and then gave some equally wishy washy responses when asked, by people who would actually be his target market, to give specifics of where he arrived at those claims.

If you act like that, then people naturally tend to get their backs up a bit feeling they're being taken for fools.

BUT...it wouldn't stop me buying one if I didn't have other methods that I find more suitable..

There is nothing new about people making extravagant claims about their product - part of trying to make it stand out in a crowded market place. The problem with this one is that the claims were made in a very public arena. Not just about the features of the product, but also about uniqueness (when there was none) and potential market (which was easily shown to be flawed). Shades of Clive Sinclair here!

The point about testing those claims in the event of failure is that it is unlikely to ever happen. The sums (of potential loss) are too small and the cost of proving the loss was a direct result of the failure of the product too high. The number of incidents where failure is likely to lead to loss is also probably very small, further reducing the likelihood of a claim.

So the product ends up as almost a novelty trinket, which might or might not work and might or might not be better than alternatives. Looks like the market has decided it is not a premium product and the retail price is now little more than half of what was originally proposed.

Following the typical product life cycle, sales will probably slowly decline and it will stay on the market as long as the manufacturer can make it for less than he can sell it (or he manages to sell all of the excess stock he made to meet his optimistic forecast).

 

[Didi]

I do find it mildly amusing that a thread about a potential warranty claim starts mildly disparaging the product! I purchased one on a whim-its less bulky than the two cork balls that would only just keep the keys afloat. I never imagined it to be a wonder product-after all its only a smaller version of a lifejacket.The technology is not mind blowing after all. I never saw Dragons Den and had only read what is on the packaging. I was amazed at the previous thread,like many others who came in late. I promise to post IMMEDIATLY should my Waterbuoy fall in the oggin with a full and complete version of what happened and if recovery was successful. I do agree that the replies from the Waterbuoy principal were far less than what was required and indeed asked for.

I have not disparaged the product but personally I would not trust it and prefer a lanyard for keys etc. I would be very interested to read your report of deployment and recovery (or otherwise). More pertinent to your original query perhaps, I would be even more interested in a report of how you got on claiming consequential loss against the manufacturer should it fail to deploy.