Quote:
Originally Posted by ashalan
Yet, if there is no apparent misuse of the device, if the technology used is so prone to being defective ... shouldn't some sort of 'in dubio pro reo' be the guideline for a company like iRex? I.e. they should simply replace it and take some pride in making a customer that was willing shell out so much money for the device happy.
|
I'm sorry for the original poster, but let's face it, iRex' technicians are the people best qualified to judge whether a screen fault is down to an electrical fault or a mechanical fracture, even if the damage was entirely inadvertent and the person may not have been aware of it. You say "in dubio pro reo" but perhaps in this case, to the technicians there was no "dubio".
Many peoples' house insurance allows them to make claims for accidental damage of this type.
I don't believe that the iLiad is any more prone to mechanical damage than other devices of this type. They do, however, have a glass substrate to the screen and need to be handled with a reasonable amount of delicacy.