Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> Well, you're obviously not to be convinced otherwise.
>

No, that would require a cogent argument.


>
> But I am certain no
> other retailer will make a product swap where you unilaterally decide to
> keep the defective product for an extended period. At the point where they
> sent you the phone and service refund, the matter should have been closed
> and you should have sent the bad phone back. That you insisted on keeping
> the phone just shows how belligerent you had become, an attitude that
> probably hurt your case from the beginning.
>

But I didn't insist on keeping the phone. The phone would have been
returned to them at the end the contract period.


>
> [Shrug] Some customers deserve to be "fired."
>

[Shrug] Some customers insist the provider adide by their service agreement.

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Well, you're obviously not to be convinced otherwise.
>>
>
> No, that would require a cogent argument.
>
>
>>
>> But I am certain no
>> other retailer will make a product swap where you unilaterally decide
>> to keep the defective product for an extended period. At the point
>> where they sent you the phone and service refund, the matter should
>> have been closed and you should have sent the bad phone back. That
>> you insisted on keeping the phone just shows how belligerent you had
>> become, an attitude that probably hurt your case from the beginning.
>>
>
> But I didn't insist on keeping the phone. The phone would have been
> returned to them at the end the contract period.
>


And the decision you made was unilateral and not in line with ANY type of
service and repair program. It is the customers like you that make it so
hard for others to get a better quality service from the carriers- they
are too exhausted from having to deal with your petty bull**** and your
need to prove your intelligence (or in this case your lack of) to the
entire world.

Now please crawl back under your rock, never to be heard from again. We
are obviously not smart enough to be in the same newsgroup as you.

At 05 Nov 2006 22:34:42 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>

> [Shrug] Some customers insist the provider adide by their service
agreement.
>
Why should they when their customer doesn't think he has to abide by his?

You don't seem to realize (or refuse to realize) that the immersion issue
was "water under the bridge" (if you'll pardon the pun) when Sprint sent
the replacement phone. They, at that point, (finally) accepted the fact
that the phone was under warranty and sent you a replacement under the
same terms they replace anyone elses- activate the new one, and send back
the old within 10 days- not 11, not 12, and certainly not 365. If
immersion was still an issue they wouldn't have bothered sending the
replacement, just as they didn't in your earier e-mails when they stood
by the immersion report.

Good luck with your new carrier, anyway...


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

At 05 Nov 2006 02:30:22 -0800 dafydd wrote:
> Yes i know, i see sprints name there too, however again, I must point
> out that the title of it is Manufacturers Warranty, and since Sprint
> does not manufacture the phones the warranty is actually handled by the
> companies that Produce the phones. I am at a loss myself as to why
> they would even bother to place their names in it, other than they
> didnt want to make however many differnt versions of the warranty info
> to include with the differnt makers phones.

Sprint handles the manufacturer's warranty since their name in on the
phone. (At least historically- apparently they've relegated warranty
coverage to the actual manufacturer on recently sold phones according to
posts here.)

> I admit that it makes it
> look as if sprint is the warranty provider, this probably is part of
> their agreement with the manufacturers, so that the sprint techs at the
> repair centers are allowed to trouble shoot the phones without
> "voiding" the warranty.

Not at all- Sprint could have simply acted as an "authorized repair
center," but instead chose to be the warranty provider, probably in the
interest of customer service, to shorten downtime.

> At any rate, what I know for a fact, is that
> if the phone is not covered by the purchased Total Equipment
> Protection, Equipment Replacement Protection, or Equipment Service and
> Repair Protection, that they are going to give you a number to call to
> the particular manufacturer for a replacement. The good thing is at
> least they have service and repair centers where the phones can be
> examined, and alot of times repaired. This is one thing I wish that
> was provided by all carriers, but alas, my own beloved t-mobile does
> not... [sigh]


True, but T-Mo at least provides in-warranty handset exchanges,
minimizing downtime, and preventing you having to deal with the
manufacturer directly.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> But I didn't insist on keeping the phone. The phone would have been
> returned to them at the end the contract period.

Which is contrary to the replacement terms, and deprives Sprint
of being reimbursed by the manufacturer.
There is no way in hell that an arbitrator will see it your way.

--
John Richards

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Not that I expect it to change your mind one bit, but I'm with the
> folks (is it plural now?)
>

Yes, two make it plural.


>
> who think you were initially right, but
> partway through the story your wheels came off the track and you went
> decidedly into the wrong. Kudos for staying rational as long as you
> did, but in the end I think you violated your contract.
>

What makes you think that? I see no language in the customer copy of the
Sprint Subscriber Agreement about the manner in which defective equipment is
replaced.

"dafydd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Yes i know, i see sprints name there too, however again, I must point
> out that the title of it is Manufacturers Warranty, and since Sprint
> does not manufacture the phones the warranty is actually handled by the
> companies that Produce the phones. I am at a loss myself as to why
> they would even bother to place their names in it, other than they
> didnt want to make however many differnt versions of the warranty info
> to include with the differnt makers phones. I admit that it makes it
> look as if sprint is the warranty provider, this probably is part of
> their agreement with the manufacturers, so that the sprint techs at the
> repair centers are allowed to trouble shoot the phones without
> "voiding" the warranty. At any rate, what I know for a fact, is that
> if the phone is not covered by the purchased Total Equipment
> Protection, Equipment Replacement Protection, or Equipment Service and
> Repair Protection, that they are going to give you a number to call to
> the particular manufacturer for a replacement. The good thing is at
> least they have service and repair centers where the phones can be
> examined, and alot of times repaired. This is one thing I wish that
> was provided by all carriers, but alas, my own beloved t-mobile does
> not... [sigh]
>

Yes, the title of it is "Manufacturers Warranty", and since it names SPRINT
SPECTRUM, L.P., (Sprint) as the entity extending the warranty then one must
conclude, based on what is contained in that statement of warranty, that
Sprint is the manufacturer.

I had a similar issue, although with a SamSung phone.
I had fallen on it and cracked the display, completely my fault.
However, Samsung would not take the phone from a consumer for repair, it
referred all consumers to their service providers for repair.

Sprint of course just claimed the phone was broken, not covered by
warranty and therefore I needed to buy a new phone. Acknowledging I
didn't expect it to be covered under warranty (from falling on the
display), I finally got through to them I wanted to REAPIR the handset
and Samsung said I MUST take it Sprint to do so. They argued it would be
cost prohibitive and I should "just buy a new one instead".

This was now principle and not monetary. It is disgusting that everything
is so "disposable". I argued I wanted the display repaired and Sprint
needed to take the unit and repair it per the agreements with the
manufacturer and the service contract.

In desperation to get me out of the store the Manager finally did a unit
swap (at no charge) becuase he could not dispute that Sprint LLC was
required to service the handset according to the contracts and
documentation -- but he didn't know how to do it.

That was a stupid N400, nothing fancy, but they were still selling new
units at the time and had a ton of refurbs in the store as well. The
downside was a swap of handsets resets the date when you are eligible for
a credit towards a new handset. That ended up beig okay for me later as
well, since I dropped my old number and took a new plan with a new number
so I could get the instant rebate instead of waiting 8-12 weeks.

Is Sprint the worst out there? Maybe, probably not though. Fwiw, it I and
so many of my family across the US were nto with Sprint I would be using
Verizon (and had several CS isues with them as well).

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "dafydd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I simply wish to pint out one thing, that may have nothing to do with
>> the post I am replying to, as much as it does the topic in general.
>> The warranty is a manufacturers warranty, not a service providers
>> warranty. If you do not get the Total Equipment Protection, or at
>> least the Equipment Service or Replacement Protection, then you are
>> going to have to deal with the manufacturer of your handset. And
>> even if you do have these, If the phone is deemed as beyond
>> repairable, you will more than likely have to call Asurion, who is
>> the underwriter for the 'handset insurance' to get a replacement.
>> There is also a $50 deductable charged for the replacement.
>>
>
> The Manufacturer's Warranty supplied with my phone identifies SPRINT
> SPECTRUM, L.P., (Sprint), as the warranter, "Sanyo" is not mentioned
> anywhere in it. I have scanned and pasted the complete warranty
> below:

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Not that I expect it to change your mind one bit, but I'm with the
>> folks (is it plural now?)
>>
>
> Yes, two make it plural.
>
>
>>
>> who think you were initially right, but
>> partway through the story your wheels came off the track and you went
>> decidedly into the wrong. Kudos for staying rational as long as you
>> did, but in the end I think you violated your contract.
>>
>
> What makes you think that? I see no language in the customer copy of
> the Sprint Subscriber Agreement about the manner in which defective
> equipment is replaced.
>
>
>

By activating the new Sanyo handset you agreed to the terms provided by
Sprint -- to send back the defective unit and complete the handset
exchange in a timely fashion.

If you did not agree to the terms you should not have taken delivery of
the new handset, and certainly should not have activated it.

Obviously using e-mail for correrspondance, though better than USPS mail,
has a lag time in the customer support world and I saw your challenge to
their terms AFTER they had agreed to ship a replacement to you (and
initiated the shipment). You attempted to change the rules of the games
while in play IMHO, sorry.

Steven,

I have read your postings for a while now. Your wrong. Where does Sprint
get their refurbished phones? From phones returned and repaired. That is
why
the 10 day retun policy. YOU just ingored the written policy. Gee, I'm
sorry
they did what was in writting - YOU brought it on yourself

Me three

Bill

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Well, you're obviously not to be convinced otherwise.
>>
>
> No, that would require a cogent argument.
>
>
>>
>> But I am certain no
>> other retailer will make a product swap where you unilaterally decide to
>> keep the defective product for an extended period. At the point where
>> they
>> sent you the phone and service refund, the matter should have been closed
>> and you should have sent the bad phone back. That you insisted on keeping
>> the phone just shows how belligerent you had become, an attitude that
>> probably hurt your case from the beginning.
>>
>
> But I didn't insist on keeping the phone. The phone would have been
> returned to them at the end the contract period.
>
>
>>
>> [Shrug] Some customers deserve to be "fired."
>>
>
> [Shrug] Some customers insist the provider adide by their service
> agreement.
>
>

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> Well, you're obviously not to be convinced otherwise.
>>
>
> No, that would require a cogent argument.
>
>
>>
>> But I am certain no
>> other retailer will make a product swap where you unilaterally decide to
>> keep the defective product for an extended period. At the point where
>> they
>> sent you the phone and service refund, the matter should have been closed
>> and you should have sent the bad phone back. That you insisted on keeping
>> the phone just shows how belligerent you had become, an attitude that
>> probably hurt your case from the beginning.
>>
>
> But I didn't insist on keeping the phone. The phone would have been
> returned to them at the end the contract period.
>

But the contract on the old phone ended the day you received the new one.
*You* are the one who is wrong in this instance. This has been pointed out
by more than one respondent. You just refuse to admit that you are wrong.


Bobby

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Not that I expect it to change your mind one bit, but I'm with the
>> folks (is it plural now?)
>>
>
> Yes, two make it plural.
>
>
>>
>> who think you were initially right, but
>> partway through the story your wheels came off the track and you went
>> decidedly into the wrong. Kudos for staying rational as long as you
>> did, but in the end I think you violated your contract.
>>
>
> What makes you think that? I see no language in the customer copy of the
> Sprint Subscriber Agreement about the manner in which defective equipment
> is replaced.
>

The reason you cannot see it is because *you* refuse to see it.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> When I made my comment about the BBB I have to admit that I didn't read
>> all the way through your 34K post. I have to agree with the other folks
>> that you went bonkers at the point where you insisted on keeping the
>> defective phone till the end of the contract.
>>
>
> "The other folks" was a total of one folk. He was wrong too.
>
>
>>
>> I've *NEVER* seen it work where the customer gets to keep both the
>> "defective" unit and the replacement one for some period of time. If you
>> were so paranoid about the "water damage" and "evidence" issue then you
>> ought to have taken a few photographs of the phone (including under the
>> battery, etc) before sending it back. I don't think you'll find any
>> carrier would handle this part of the situation differently.
>>
>> You received the new phone, you received the credit on the bill, and you
>> had it in writing that the credit would be permanent once they received
>> the broken one. (It was not conditional on whether the phone was
>> water-damaged or not.) They even gave you the additional $89 credit for
>> no service.
>
> Actually, I didn't have it in writing. I had it in email. But even if I
> had had it in writing, so what? After all, I had the warranty in writing,
> and they had already refused to honor that.
>
>
>>
>> Basically you were being non-cooperative at that point.
>>
>
> No, it was Sprint that was being non-cooperative at that point. The
> conditions upon which the defective phone would be returned were clearly
> explained to them.
>
You are both arrogant and pompous. You are paying Srint for a service that
they provide, and you agreed to abide by their terms when you entered into
the contract. *YOU* cannot dictate any terms to them. You are simply wrong
in your actions, and it ultimately equates to theft.

You need to understand that the world does not revolve around you. Sprint
does not care what you think. You agreed to accept their terms, implicit
with the activation of your contract. Grow up.

Honu

Both? Since you agreed with me that must make three of us.

In any event, I haven't seen a single poster who fully agrees with Mr.
McNicoll's view of the matter. I guess we're all on Sprint's payroll.

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are both arrogant and pompous.

"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Both? Since you agreed with me that must make three of us.
>
> In any event, I haven't seen a single poster who fully agrees with Mr.
> McNicoll's view of the matter. I guess we're all on Sprint's payroll.
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> You are both arrogant and pompous.
>
>

My Apologies, Bill...my remarks were directed at Mr. McNicoll...not at you.
I apologize for the confusion. I meant to say that Mr. McNicoll is both
arrogant and pompous...and I am not on the Sprint payroll...lol.

Honu