Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

I am sure every (or at least most) losing parties in lawsuits would say the
same thing. They *think* they are right but somehow they couldn't convince
anyone else of that.


"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote
> My account of events is accurate, my course of action was reasonable, why
> wouldn't an arbitrator see it my way?
>

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I am sure every (or at least most) losing parties in lawsuits would say
> the same thing. They *think* they are right but somehow they couldn't
> convince anyone else of that.
>

No doubt. This won't go to court, however.

"Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ok, I have this question that has been nagging me for a while. Even if
> you're 1000% right, why would you want to keep the broken phone
> anyhow? (Perhaps you answered this already. Apologies if you did. I
> didn't read the beginning of the thread.)
>

I didn't trust them to keep their word and actually issue the credit after I
returned the phone. Keeping the phone to the end of the contract period was
insurance.

Sprint never conceded that their agent was wrong when she declared the phone
had been immersed and the warranty void. They still maintain the phone was
water damaged, they just decided to send me a new phone out of the goodness
of their corporate heart because I had been such a good customer for so
long. ( I think by that time we'd been Sprint customers for less than ten
months.) If they had simply admitted their agent was wrong and recognized
that the phone failed while still covered by a valid warranty the phone
would have been returned months ago and I'd still be a Sprint customer. I
didn't even demand an apology, I simply demanded they stand by the
subscriber's agreement. I've been informed in this forum that that is the
wrong thing to do.

Here are the pertinent messages that you missed:



Dear Nikki,

The replacement Sanyo 2300 handset was received and activated on May 11th.
The original Sanyo 2300 handset which was purchased on July 9, 2005, will be
returned to Sprint at the end of the Subscriber Agreement, December 16,
2007, upon receipt of a statement showing a zero balance.

Approximately three months elapsed between the date which Sprint was made
aware of the problems with this handset and the date it was finally
replaced. Clearly, if the phone is not functioning properly the service I'm
paying for is not being provided. Therefore Sprint must issue a credit for
three months of service on the NNN-NNN-NNNN line.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprint Customer Solutions" <[email protected]>
To: "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Mcnicoll- Handset Problem (KMM20183982I123L0KM)


> Dear Steven,
>
> This email is in continuation to your correspondence regarding the
> handset problem.
>
> I am the supervisor at E-Care and this email has come up as an
> escalation.
>
> I am extremely sorry for the frustration you have experienced due to the
> behavior of the representative at the Sprint Store and Customer service.
>
> I have reviewed your account and noticed that the Sanyo 2300 phone was
> activated on July 09, 2005 on the phone number NNN-NNN-NNNN. Since this
> phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following actions on your
> account:
>
> 1. I am sending a new Sanyo 2300 handset at the following address:
>
> 1851 South Sunkist Circle
> De Pere, WI- 54115
>
> The handset processing confirmation number is PK9J343.
>
> 2. I am applying the temporary credit of $189.99 (equal to the price of
> the handset) on your account;
>
> 3. I am also sending the Return Kit for the Sanyo 2300 handset you
> currently have so that you can return the same.
>
> Upon receipt of the handset and the Return Kit, please take the
> following actions:
>
> 1. Call us at 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone to get the new
> handset activated;
> 2. Return the Sanyo 2300 handset you currently have by keeping the same
> in the Return Kit.
> 3. Write back to us with the tracking number of the Return Kit.
>
> When the handset is received in the Warehouse, I will apply the
> permanent credit of $189.99 to your account. However, if the handset
> does not reach Warehouse within 10 days, your account will be charged
> $189.99 (equal to the price of the new handset).
>
> Please feel free to write back if you have any other questions. Have a
> great day!
>
> Nikki G.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>



----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprint Customer Solutions" <[email protected]>
To: "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Mcnicoll- Handset Problem (KMM20923020I123L0KM)


> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> I can see how you feel a credit to your account is required here.
> However, after looking at your account and going through the entire
> issue and interactions which you had with us through phone and email, I
> am sorry to inform you that it will not be possible to apply a credit
> against the three months of service and handset (until the old handset
> is returned).
>
> The new phone was issued to you for free considering the fact that we
> will be receiving the old phone back within ten days. Also, the notes
> on your account state that the warranty was void as the phone was
> immersed in water. However, considering your long term relationship
> with us, we issued you a free phone.
>
> If the old phone is not returned by June 04, 2006, the system will
> automatically charge $189.99 on the account.
>
> I appreciate you emailing us today. Thanks.
>
> Leslie S.
> Business E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


>
> Oh... and..
>
> "What gives Sprint the right to change the rules..." well, most companies'
> cellular contracts does give them the right to change the rules... (You
> asked!)
>

Yes, I did ask, there is no such language in the Sprint contract I signed.

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You've admitted multiple times that you refused to return the phone.
>

I never said that at all.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Fair is fair, Paul. He didn't refuse to return it, he was just waiting
> until Apes rose up to rule the planet before he returned it... ;-)
>

No, just to the end of the contract period.

In article <F%[email protected]>, Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> I didn't trust them to keep their word and actually issue the credit after I
> returned the phone. Keeping the phone to the end of the contract period was
> insurance.

From what I understand, you've since been issued the credit. What's the point
in keeping the phone?



--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Because the next examination might be logged in properly.
>

I don't know that any examination was not logged in properly.


>
> Sometimes the "t's don't get dotted and the i's don't get crossed," as
> they say. Sprint obviously has a difficult bureaucratic protocol, and
> you obviously are the type that likes to tilt at windmills rather t
> an work within the system. There's nothing wrong with that, if principal
> is more important than ease to you.
>

Odd, I thought I WAS working within the system when I contacted customer
service.


>
> I suspect that I, in your place, could've had the phone replaced in a
> quicker timeframe and without a $400+ debt to Sprint by working with
> them. (You no doubt believed you "worked with them" in ypur first pile
> of e-mails, but I suspect with a visit or two, a phone call or two, and
> perhaps a couple or three e-mails I could've got the phone replaced by
> following whatever procedure would've been necessary to get the
> "immersed" record expunged, which would then make it a relatively simple
> handset exchange.
>

That's exactly what I did. Why do you believe it would have worked for you?


>
> I suspect you did by activating the phone.
>

Nope.


>
> To be fair, I've never used Sprint, but I've exchanged two defective
> handsets with T-Mobile over the last five years, and both times, the
> terms of the exchange were explained on the phone when I requested the
> exchange, and in the documentation that came with the replacement phone.
> It *****ed out exactly how long I had to return the phone, and how much
> it would cost me if I didn't. Most importantly, it exp
> ained that USING THE HANDSET I AGREED to those terms.
>

It's different with Sprint, there's no such language that states activating
the handset constitutes agreement with the terms.


>
> I will have a VERY hard time believing you if you claim the 10-day return
> was not *****ed out to you in the paperwork included with the replacement
> handset and when you called to activate it. I even suspect the
> paperwork, like T-Mo's, goes so far to say that the activation or use of
> the replacement handset constitutes an agreement to their terms, much
> like ripping open the seal on a CD-ROM constitutes agreement with the
> software license.
>

Well, it wasn't *****ed out, and I don't care if you believe me or not.


>
> I agree, but there goes your tilting at windmills again. Did you ask
> Sprint to suspend the service on the defective phone?
>

Nope, I asked them for service under the warranty, they said the phone was
not defective but had been immersed and the warranty thus void.

Sprint together with Nextel
"Where our customers come first!"


>
> Did you ask your
> local Sprint store for a loaner phone to use while you were fighting for
> the warranty replacement?
>

No.


>
> Or did you actually enjoy your little e-mail p*ssing match?
>

I just wanted them to stand by their agreement. Why is that so wrong?


>
> No, they demonstrated their incompetence by relying solely on that first
> report- remember they INVITED you to get a "second opinion" (not
> realizing you already had.) But, because you already had (although
> perhaps not correctly documented) you prefered to argue through another
> few e-mail Volleys rathe than go back to those techs and get their
> opinion in writing that you could've then shoved down Sprint's throat and
> had your phone replaced earlier.
>

Rubbish. I named the Sprint representatives that examined the phone,
identified the location, gave them the date the phone was examined and
explained their findings. They could have easily verified what I was
telling them. They may very well have verified it, I have no way of
knowing.


>
> Almost anything is repairable. If it was not immersed, Sanyo would've
> repaired the phone and returned it to Sprint as a refurbished unit, which
> would be eventually used as an exchange handset, just like the one they
> sent you..
>

But not if it WAS immersed? Recall from my initial message that Sprint
still maintains that it WAS immersed. If such phones are not repairable
than Sprint loses nothing by return of the phone at the end of the contract
period instead of the period they requested. So what's the hurry?


>
> And a $400 charge-off on your credit report...
>

And a good knowledge of the Fair Credit Reporting and Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts. They can't hurt me.


>
> I'm not talking about whatever contract you signed when you started
> service- I'm talking about whatever instructions or paperwork was
> supplied with the replacement phone, and you know it.
>

I never agreed to those instructions.


>
> Sure. Right after the arbitrator orders you to write a $200+ check to
> Sprint (the $400 you owe them, less the $189 handset.)>
>

Arbitration is part of the agreement, did Sprint not void that agreement
when they refused to stand by it? Is the agreement only binding on the
consumer?


>
> If you're lucky, it won't...
>
> Good luck with the whole mess. I'll let you go- I'm needed in
> alt.talking.to.brickwall where I have a better chance of convincing
> someone to see the other side of an argument...
>

I suggest facts and logic, that's always worked for me.


>
> (P.S. Earlier you delighted in pointing out I was sole poster that
> disagreed with you. The numbers on "my" side have certainly risen, but
> has anyone actually agreed that your actions were reasonable yet?)
>

Nope, but as I pointed out in another message responses in these forums
don't tend to be of the "I agree" variety but of the "You're fulla crap"
variety.

"Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> From what I understand, you've since been issued the credit. What's the
> point
> in keeping the phone?
>

I haven't been issued the credit. Sprint still maintains the phone was
immersed. If I return the phone I cannot prove it was not. Had they
conceded that the phone had not been immersed, that their agent was wrong to
declare that it had been, I would have had no reason to keep it. I would
have returned it upon receipt of the new phone and would still be a Sprint
customer.

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Of course it won't go to court. My only wish is that you'll come back
> and let us all know how your attempt to take legal action went, after
> you lose, of course. Unfortunately, people never come back to admit
> defeat after making fools of themselves.
>

How can I lose?

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Fair is fair, Paul. He didn't refuse to return it, he was just waiting
>> until Apes rose up to rule the planet before he returned it... ;-)
>>
>
> No, just to the end of the contract period.
>

Your "contract" is tied to the ESN (Electronic Serial Number) of your phone.
Your "contract" on the original phone ended when you accepted the new phone.

You are completely wrong...although you will never admit it. You are like a
stubborn little child.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Of course it won't go to court. My only wish is that you'll come back
>> and let us all know how your attempt to take legal action went, after
>> you lose, of course. Unfortunately, people never come back to admit
>> defeat after making fools of themselves.
>>
>
> How can I lose?
>

Because you are wrong. You activated a new phone. If you try very hard, you
might be able to understand that you are wrong. But then again, given your
likelihood to keep your head buried in the sand, it is very likely that you
will go on believing in your own little mind that you are right.

Bobby

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Because the next examination might be logged in properly.
>>
>
> I don't know that any examination was not logged in properly.
>
>
>>
>> Sometimes the "t's don't get dotted and the i's don't get crossed," as
>> they say. Sprint obviously has a difficult bureaucratic protocol, and
>> you obviously are the type that likes to tilt at windmills rather t
>> an work within the system. There's nothing wrong with that, if principal
>> is more important than ease to you.
>>
>
> Odd, I thought I WAS working within the system when I contacted customer
> service.
>
>
>>
>> I suspect that I, in your place, could've had the phone replaced in a
>> quicker timeframe and without a $400+ debt to Sprint by working with
>> them. (You no doubt believed you "worked with them" in ypur first pile
>> of e-mails, but I suspect with a visit or two, a phone call or two, and
>> perhaps a couple or three e-mails I could've got the phone replaced by
>> following whatever procedure would've been necessary to get the
>> "immersed" record expunged, which would then make it a relatively simple
>> handset exchange.
>>
>
> That's exactly what I did. Why do you believe it would have worked for
> you?
>
>
>>
>> I suspect you did by activating the phone.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
>
>>
>> To be fair, I've never used Sprint, but I've exchanged two defective
>> handsets with T-Mobile over the last five years, and both times, the
>> terms of the exchange were explained on the phone when I requested the
>> exchange, and in the documentation that came with the replacement phone.
>> It *****ed out exactly how long I had to return the phone, and how much
>> it would cost me if I didn't. Most importantly, it exp
>> ained that USING THE HANDSET I AGREED to those terms.
>>
>
> It's different with Sprint, there's no such language that states
> activating the handset constitutes agreement with the terms.
>

Now you have simple destroyed any tiny shred of credibility you had left.
Previous to the line above, I thought you were stubborn. Now I realize I
was wrong. You are, in fact, quite stupid. Are you really so bereft of any
functioning brain cells that you would believe that activation the handset
does not constitute an agreement to their terms of service?

You have gone from being a belligerent customer to a full-blown whack job.

I hope the weather is pleasant on your planet.

Honu.

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Your "contract" is tied to the ESN (Electronic Serial Number) of your
> phone. Your "contract" on the original phone ended when you accepted the
> new phone.
>

My "contract" is a piece of paper with specific dates on it.


>
> You are completely wrong...although you will never admit it. You are like
> a stubborn little child.
>

I will admit I'm wrong when someone can demonstrate that I'm wrong. So far
nobody has come close.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Your "contract" is tied to the ESN (Electronic Serial Number) of your
>> phone. Your "contract" on the original phone ended when you accepted the
>> new phone.
>>
>
> My "contract" is a piece of paper with specific dates on it.

There is more to your contract than the dates. You just refuse to
acknowldge that.
>
>
>>
>> You are completely wrong...although you will never admit it. You are
>> like a stubborn little child.
>>
>
> I will admit I'm wrong when someone can demonstrate that I'm wrong. So
> far nobody has come close.

You just refuse to acknowledge the truth. As long as you continue to be in
a state of denial, you will think that no one has "proven" you wrong. You
are the only one who thinks you are right.

Of all the things in life that you could have taken a stand for...(shakes
head)....

Honu

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Now you have simple destroyed any tiny shred of credibility you had left.
> Previous to the line above, I thought you were stubborn. Now I realize I
> was wrong. You are, in fact, quite stupid. Are you really so bereft of
> any functioning brain cells that you would believe that activation the
> handset does not constitute an agreement to their terms of service?
>

Let me state it for you in real simple terms.

Absent any language stating that activation of the handset constituted
agreement to their terms of service, activation of the handset was NOT an
agreement to their terms of service.

There was no language stating that activation of the handset constituted
agreement to their terms of service.

Do you understand now?