Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

Ahhhh, I get it Glad you cleared that up! LOL

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I read your post closely. While you did have three employees examine the
> phone, only one (the lady who claimed immersion) filed any paperwork on
> it.
>
> Again, I believe your story wholeheartedly- my point was the nameless
> faceless folks at Sprint corporate only had two pieces of info- their
> (idiot) agent who said it was immersed, and a customer who "claimed" it
> wasn't. You provided no paperwork from the other two employees
> contesting the first's report. (I'm not saying you should have- my point
> is only that Sprint only had your word that such a follow-up inspection
> of your phone ever took place.)
>

I doubt Ms. Blondheim filed any actual paper, I'm sure it was just a
computer entry. A computer entry was also made by one of the other Sprint
representatives that examined my phone and could not find any water damage,
although I do not know if he input anything with regard to the condition of
the phone.

So I provided a bit more than just a claim by a customer stating the phone
was not immersed. I provided a date and address of a Sprint Store where my
phone was examined and identified the Sprint representatives that examined
it by name. Note that in Sprint's response to my first message their
customer service representative told me, " Further, if you feel that your
PCS Phone has not been checked properly at one Sprint store, I request you
to visit another store and get it checked by a technician." Which was
exactly what I had done, and had told them of the results! What is the
point of having it examined at another location if that examination is going
to be ignored?


>
> Now you're just being coy- the replacement terms were explained to you
> when you received the replacement- return the defective in 10 days or get
> charged $189.
>

But I did not agree to those terms.


>
> There's coy again- ever exchange a defective product in a retail store?
>

Yup. Many times.


>
> I suspect they wouldn't let you leave with both the replacement and the
> original item would they? Nor would they accept "you can have it back in
> a year!"
>

Bad analogy. I didn't purchase a product from Sprint, I subscribed to a
service. A service I was still paying for but Sprint was not providing
because the phone they had provided failed while under warranty and they
refused to repair or replace it in accordance with the contract. I don't
know about you, but when a service provider stops providing the service I
stop providing the payments. Finally, yes, they did agree to replace the
phone. But I had only their word that I would receive a refund of the
replacement cost once they received the defective phone, and they had
already demonstrated their word was worthless.


>
> And Sprint gave you two phones when you only paid for one. Whether they
> both worked or not isn't the issue- the defective had value to Sprint and
> you deprived them the use of it.
>

What value was the defective phone to Sprint? Remember, this was a phone
that Sprint maintains was immersed in water. What value are such phones?
Are they repairable?


>
> Apparently there's a fine line between coy and smartass! ;-)
>
> Sprint apparently corrected you, when they levied the $189 charge on your
> bill.
>

Apparently not, I still have the phone and have good service with a new
provider.



>
> No, they refused at first, and thanks to your persistence they changed
> their position. Sprint honored the warranty eventually, but you then
> dishonored your side of the warranty terms by refusing to return
> thedevective in the timeframe allotted.
>

The warranty terms say nothing about a timetable for returning the defective
phone. I violated no part of the agreement.


>
> They wouldn't have to prove the phone was immersed. They'd claim you owe
> them $189 for the phone you didn't return and they'd be right. You
> didn't return it.
>

Irrelevant. I did not refuse to return the phone, the phone would have been
returned in the manner I clearly explained to Sprint. If we go to court it
will be proved that the phone was not immersed, and the phone can then be
returned because it will no longer be needed for that proof. Do you think
that'd be a favorable outcome for Sprint?


>
> No, because I don't believe Sprint would immerse your phone after
> receiving it just to screw you out of $189. They are stupidly
> bureaucratic and incompetent but not evil.
>
> If you're so certain you'd win in arbitration you should probably demand
> it. Just because Sprint terminated your service doesn't make the bill go
> away. They still will want their $400+, and will send it to a collection
> agency. Winning at arbitration would erase that debt. I suspect that
> you don't believe there is a debt owed to Sprint because you didn't agree
> to it (although you probably did legally when you activated the
> replacement phone) but I doubt Equifax and Transunion will see it you
> way...
>

They've already sent it to collections. I expect I'll be to taking legal
action against Sprint, I expect it won't go to court.

"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>

Right. Those of us that demand providers adhere to the terms of their
service agreements make it hard for all of you doormats out there.

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Why should they when their customer doesn't think he has to abide by his?
>

In what way do you believe I have not adhered to the agreement?


>
> 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.
>

The issue is trust. Sprint had refused to abide by the agreement. They had
proven they can't be trusted. There was no reason for me to believe I
would receive the credit for the phone.


>
> Good luck with your new carrier, anyway...
>

I've had excellent service to date with Verizon.

"John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Which is contrary to the replacement terms, and deprives Sprint
> of being reimbursed by the manufacturer.
>

Why would Sprint be reimbursed by the manufacturer? It is Sprint's position
that a customer dropped the phone in water, why would Sanyo reimburse Sprint
for that?


>
> There is no way in hell that an arbitrator will see it your way.
>

Why not?

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
>

Not so. There was no language that made activation of the phone an
agreement with Sprint's terms.


>
> 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.
>

I don't see why not. The warranty states Sprint will at their option repair
or replace a defective phone. It took a lot of effort on my part, far more
than should have been necessary, but they finally decided to replace it.
Why would I not activate it at that point?


>
> 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.
>

Yes, I did. Just as Sprint did when they decided they would not repair or
replace a defective phone with a valid warranty. The rules that Sprint
established and which I agreed to state that they must do one or the other
and they refused to do either. What gives Sprint the right to change the
rules but not the customer?

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The reason you cannot see it is because *you* refuse to see it.
>

No, the reason I cannot see it is because there is no such language there.

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I have read your postings for a while now. Your wrong. Where does Sprint
> get their refurbished phones? From phones returned and repaired.
>

Phones that have been immersed are repairable?


>
> 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
>

Where is this policy written?

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> But the contract on the old phone ended the day you received the new one.
>

Did it? Odd, then, that they didn't send me a new contract.


>
> *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.
>

Yes, but none of those respondents have been able to make a cogent argument
in support of their position.

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

>
> "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Right. Those of us that demand providers adhere to the terms of their
> service agreements make it hard for all of you doormats out there.
>
>
>

No- those of you with a third grade education and feel compelled to try
their hand at contract law.

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> You are both arrogant and pompous. You are paying Srint for a service
> that they provide,
>

No I'm not. I was, but I stopped when Sprint stopped providing the service
I was paying them to provide.


>
> and you agreed to abide by their terms when you entered
> into the contract.
>

Yup, I sure did. What you people are missing is that that contract requires
Sprint to do certain things as well, and they were not doing them.


>
> *YOU* cannot dictate any terms to them.
>


No? But *THEY* can dictate terms to me? Where is that stated in the
contract?


>
> You are simply
> wrong in your actions, and it ultimately equates to theft.
>

How so? I didn't refuse to return the phone, I simply told them the phone
could not be returned before the contract period was over.

When Sprint refused to repair or replace my phone in accordance with the
terms *THEY* dictated and *I* accepted they continued to charge me for
service on that line. Does that not ultimately equate 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.
>

I complied with all of the explicit terms, implicit terms are meaningless.

At 07 Nov 2006 04:00:25 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> I doubt Ms. Blondheim filed any actual paper, I'm sure it was just a
> computer entry.

I apologize- I'm using the term "paperwork" in the modern 21st Century
sense.

> A computer entry was also made by one of the other Sprint
> representatives that examined my phone and could not find any water
damage,
> although I do not know if he input anything with regard to the
condition of
> the phone.


I misse
that if it was in your original post- I assumed your interaction with
the techs was purely verbal.
>
> So I provided a bit more than just a claim by a customer stating the
phone
> was not immersed. I provided a date and address of a Sprint Store
where my
> phone was examined and identified the Sprint representatives that
examined
> it by name. Note that in Sprint's response to my first message their
> customer service representative told me, " Further, if you feel that
your
> PCS Phone has not been checked properly at one Sprint store, I request
you
> to visit another store and get it checked by a technician." Which was
> exactly what I had done, and had told them of the results!

This is what made me assume those techs didn't file a report, or Sprint
would've had some documentation.

> What is the
> point of having it examined at another location if that examination is
going
> to be ignored?

Because the next examination might be 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.

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.

> >
> > Now you're just being coy- the replacement terms were explained to you
> > when you received the replacement- return the defective in 10 days or
get
> > charged $189.
> >
>
> But I did not agree to those terms.

I suspect you did by activating the phone.

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. I suspect they'd
have repeated the terms again if I called in to activate, but with GSM
carriers like T-Mobile, you don't need to activate a phone, aremovable
SIM chip in the phone is your "account" and can be moved to any
compatible phone without contacting the carrier.

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.


> >
> > I suspect they wouldn't let you leave with both the replacement and
the
> > original item would they? Nor would they accept "you can have it
back in
> > a year!"
> >
>
> Bad analogy. I didn't purchase a product from Sprint, I subscribed to
a
> service.

No, you did both, unless you supplied your own phone.

> A service I was still paying for but Sprint was not providing
> because the phone they had provided failed while under warranty and
they
> refused to repair or replace it in accordance with the contract. I
don't
> know about you, but when a service provider stops providing the service
I
> stop providing the payments.

I agree, but there goes your tilting at windmills again. Did you ask
Sprint to suspend the service on the defective phone? Did you ask your
local Sprint store for a loaner phone to use while you were fighting for
the warranty replacement? Or did you actually enjoy your little e-mail
p*ssing match?

> Finally, yes, they did agree to replace the
> phone. But I had only their word that I would receive a refund of the
> replacement cost once they received the defective phone, and they had
> already demonstrated their word was worthless.

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.
>

> What value was the defective phone to Sprint? Remember, this was a
phone
> that Sprint maintains was immersed in water. What value are such
phones?
> Are they repairable?

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..

> > Apparently there's a fine line between coy and smartass! ;-)
> >
> > Sprint apparently corrected you, when they levied the $189 charge on
your
> > bill.
> >
>
> Apparently not, I still have the phone and have good service with a new
> provider.

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


> The warranty terms say nothing about a timetable for returning the
defective
> phone. I violated no part of the agreement.

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.
>
> >
> > They wouldn't have to prove the phone was immersed. They'd claim you
owe
> > them $189 for the phone you didn't return and they'd be right. You
> > didn't return it.
> >
>
> Irrelevant. I did not refuse to return the phone, the phone would have
been
> returned in the manner I clearly explained to Sprint. If we go to
court it
> will be proved that the phone was not immersed, and the phone can then
be
> returned because it will no longer be needed for that proof. Do you
think
> that'd be a favorable outcome for Sprint?

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

> They've already sent it to collections. I expect I'll be to taking
legal
> action against Sprint, I expect it won't go to court.
>
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...

(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?)


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

At 07 Nov 2006 05:35:49 +0000 Paul Miner wrote:

> You've admitted multiple times that you refused to return the phone.
>

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... ;-)


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

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

> Not so. There was no language that made activation of the phone an
> agreement with Sprint's terms.

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.)

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!)

--
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.

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is no "why" or "why not" to this story. If your account of
> events is accurate, there is no way in hell that an arbitrator will
> see it your way. If that's not what you intended, you shouldn't have
> handled things the way you did.
>

My account of events is accurate, my course of action was reasonable, why
wouldn't an arbitrator see it my way?