In the spring of 2020, Kari Holm bought a new mobile phone from the Wow brand for NOK 6,000 in one of the stores of the electrical chain Gnist. The clerk said it was a new brand and therefore a reasonable price, but Kari would get "a lot of phone for the money". Not least, the processor and battery were good. 

Kari was very happy with the phone. Her previous phone had often hung up when she played games with some advanced graphics that she had downloaded. In January 2021, she was notified that she could download a software update needed to run the latest versions of the most used apps. Kari did this immediately. After the update, she found that the phone became slower, much like the previous phone. After the update, the new phone also had to be charged more often. 

On January 24, Kari was on a five-hour ski trip in Nordmarka. It was Blswix-lead, about 5 degrees below zero. The phone was fully charged when she started. During the trip, she had three phone calls of a total of 35 minutes, and she had checked her map position on the app "Out" 4-5 times. When she returned to the bus stop, the battery was flat. 

When Kari came home and got the phone charged again, she called the store and complained. "She could not have it that way," she said. The employee in the store explained that it was correct that the new update both weakened the battery and made the phone slower than it had originally been. But this was necessary to make many of the latest and most popular apps work. Kari replied that she then canceled the purchase. She confirmed this in an e-mail shortly afterwards and referred to the Consumer Purchases Act  32. 

In its response, the electrical chain Gnist denied that Kari had any claim. Gnist agreed that Kari had to be considered a consumer, but believed that the phone could not be defective when it fully met Kari's expectations when she received it. The company could not bear the risk of a later update. Third, the business felt that even after the update, the phone was no worse than Kari could expect based on the price. Gnist agreed that the games and apps that Kari had downloaded to the phone were about the same size as the apps found on the phone of an average consumer. But when Kari started the phone for the first time, she had clicked "accept" on some terms of use. Here it was clear: 

The customer accepts that the supplier can update and change the software for technical, legal or commercial reasons. Such updates or changes may impair the phone's performance or battery life. The supplier is not responsible for problems that the customer may experience as a result of this. " If the update should presumably make the telephone defective, Gnist stated that the conditions for termination pursuant to section 32 of the Consumer Purchases Act were in any case not present. Kari maintains her claim for revocation. The terms of use totaled 14 A4 pages if printed, and like most others, she had not read them when she clicked "accept". She could therefore not be considered to have adopted them, Kari thought. Furthermore, she believed that it could not be decisive for the defect issue that the phone was not defective when it was delivered. The seller also had to answer for errors that occurred later, when they were due to conditions on the seller's side. Discuss take a position on Kari's claims and the legal issues raised by the thesis.