Michael <[email protected]> wrote
> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
>>>> Michael <[email protected]> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote

>>>>>> Its completely different because the customer may well have
>>>>>> signed up on the basis of the statement by 3 that they will
>>>>>> unlock the handset once the contract completes and then finds
>>>>>> that that they cant actually get their handset unlocked when the
>>>>>> contract completes.

>>>>> Yes, but are 3 actually claiming that they wont unlock ANY
>>>>> handsets EVER sold through them?

>>>> Irrelevant. If 3 doesnt make it clear that they wont unlock that
>>>> handset, at the time that the customer is considering buying it,
>>>> they have flouted the TPA, because they havent made that very
>>>> significant limitation of that handset clear to the customer at
>>>> that time.

>>> I dont think thats been the claim though.

>> Irrelevant. What matters is that 3 is ****ed regardless.

>>> The claim seems to be that they wont unlock handsets they have
>>> previously advised they would

>> Irrelevant. What matters is that 3 is ****ed regardless.

> No, not regardless.

Wrong, as always.

> If they claim that they will unlock, and they claim "handsets bought after xx/yy/zz will not be
> unlocked", that will fly,

Wrong, as always. Wont fix his situation legally.

> assuming the dealer doesnt tell any porkies




› See More: 3 cannot unlock mobile phones - BULL****