Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You go buy a new TV, dummy. TV warranties don't cover your home catching
> on
> fire.
>

The home didn't catch on fire, the TV burst into flames 4 weeks after
bringing it home.

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> If you choose not to abide by Sprint's terms, they have every right to
> refuse
> to uphold their end of the agreement.
>

And if Sprint chooses not to abide by their terms, I have every right to
refuse to uphold my end of the agreement.

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wrong! You ACCEPTED the replacement deal. You ACCEPTED the
> replacement phone. Which means contractually you ACCEPTED the terms which
> required you to return the old phone within 10 days.
>

I did not accept their replacement deal

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You don't have to prove anything. You have a written document (Sprint's
> email)
> which *****s out the terms of the replacement deal. Nowhere in the email
> does Sprint say that getting the $189 credit is contingent on finding that
> the old phone was not immersed.
>

Sprint has a history of not honoring written documents.

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Semantics again. If it was IN a fire, it obviously is not covered by any
> manufacturer's warranty; talk to your homeowners insurance.
>

But there was no fire so homeowners insurance won't cover it. What do you
do now?

I did read your previous posts, but no where does Sprint state that they are
replacing the phone under warranty. You have decided that is what they are
doing.


"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Where do they state that they are replacing the phone under warranty?
> >
>
> Sorry, I thought you said you read my previous messages.
>
> Sprint's position is the phone was immersed and the warranty was void, but
> they're replacing it anyway. The fact is the phone failed while under
> warranty, it has no water damage at all. They charged me for the
> replacement phone and promised to credit that charge after I send them the
> evidence that their position is not correct.
>
>

"Zman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I did read your previous posts, but no where does Sprint state that they
> are
> replacing the phone under warranty. You have decided that is what they
> are
> doing.
>

What did I write that you twisted into that understanding?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:24:24 GMT, John Richards <[email protected]> wrote:


>"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> You don't get to dictate that. Sprint said ten days, and since they are
>>> providing you with the replacement, it's *their* choice.
>>>
>>
>> O, but I do get to dictate that. I said at the end of the contract period,
>> and since I possess the original phone, it's *my* choice.

>Wrong! You ACCEPTED the replacement deal. You ACCEPTED the
>replacement phone. Which means contractually you ACCEPTED the
>terms which required you to return the old phone within 10 days.

I think it's time to quit argueing with the troll. It's as pointless as
argueing with an email autoresponder.

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I should become an arbitrator. This stuff is easy! (This case,
> anyway.)
>

You don't appear to be qualified for that position.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Okay fine Mr semanitics.
>> they did on two separate occasions state they were in good faith trying
>> to make the customer [you] happy and would provide a free replacement.
>> Yes, they said FREEEEE.
>> But the catch, for those who are paranoid,
>> is it is a FREE R E P L A C E M E N T. Meaning give them the suspect
>> phone in question in exchange for a good working unit.
>>
>
> I agreed to give them the phone, review the thread.
>

Your *agreement* means nothing as you still have the phone.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And completely moot.
>> They offerred to exchange the handset but you kept the old one.
>>
>
> Not so, I agreed to return the phone.
>

You lied to them. You still have the phone. Your *agreement* is worthless.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I should become an arbitrator. This stuff is easy! (This case,
>> anyway.)
>>
>
> You don't appear to be qualified for that position.
>

He is more qualified than you. At least he sticks to the facts. You kept
the phone.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You have the email that says they're replacing the phone, as I mentioned
>> earlier today. At that point it doesn't matter, you have WRITTEN
>> DOCUMENTATION
>> that they agreed to replace it. And at that point you have a legal leg to
>> stand
>> on. The way you did things, you don't have much of anything.
>>
>
> But WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION is not honored by Sprint.
>

Only in your feeble mind....

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Wrong! You ACCEPTED the replacement deal. You ACCEPTED the
>> replacement phone. Which means contractually you ACCEPTED the terms which
>> required you to return the old phone within 10 days.
>>
>
> I did not accept their replacement deal
>

By accepting and activating the replacement, you *DID* accept the
replacement deal. You are just too dense to realize that.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You don't have to prove anything. You have a written document (Sprint's
>> email)
>> which *****s out the terms of the replacement deal. Nowhere in the email
>> does Sprint say that getting the $189 credit is contingent on finding
>> that the old phone was not immersed.
>>
>
> Sprint has a history of not honoring written documents.
>

LOL! Now he is re-inventing history!

Honu