If a valid warranty case exists, the general principle is that the costs shall be borne by the seller.
Any clause in the General Terms and Conditions that requires the buyer to bear the costs of inspecting the purchased item in the event that no relevant defect is found, is invalid as it would discourage the buyer from asserting claims for defects (see for example Austrian Federal Court of Justice, Case No. VII ZR 110/09, on September 2, 2010).
However, the customer is responsible for costs if they negligently or intentionally failed to recognize that the defect originated from their own actions or mishandling, which is usually (only) in the case of clear signs of mishandling such as obvious dropping damage or if the phone was submerged in water, while the latter could give grounds for arguments that a customer has not read the exclusion of IPXXX certifications.
In cases where it is difficult to determine if the customer was (grossly) negligent in not recognizing the issue and there is a cost involved, supplier shall consider a goodwill solution.
If the supplier believes the customer acted in a grossly negligent or intentional way when returning the device for inspection, they must provide sufficient evidence.
- It shall be noted, that with regards to neglect or intention, customers are usually considered layman, meaning they may have limited knowledge or expertise in specific areas. Courts often adopt a lenient approach when assessing negligence or intention on the part of customers.
Concluding the above :
- The customer is responsible for costs only
- if they negligently or intentionally caused the defect,
- with leniency applied for customers' limited expertise,
- and the supplier must provide sufficient evidence for claims of gross negligence or intent.