Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

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

>
> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Worthless to YOU. Because of the possibility it could indeed be
>> repaired, as I described in my post in detail. D'oh. You're not even
>> reading now, are you? Just auto-posting the same thing over and over.
>>
>
> But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was
> not immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.
>
Well we hope it is worth $189, because it so far has cost you much more
than that. I would guess $189 + 3 months service @ $30 per + late charges
= $279.

Add to that a possible early termination fee (once the account was
deactivated for non-payment) and you are probably looking at collections
coming after you for about $480.

Now would be a good time to slap your head and realize you have made an a
error and ask how to best resolve it. Then again, if ths all transpired
in May... why start hashing it around now?

---

› See More: Can a phone which has been immersed in water be repaired?

Now Paul, let's not be overly cruel to Mr. McNicoll.
If his entire account is accurate we will recall the phone was his
daughter's and resided in her purse with bottled water that leaked. His
daughter claiming to have remove the phone before it was exposed to the
leaking bottle is moot. The point being, the sub-text infers she visited
the Sprint store on her own leading one to hopefully believe her to be of
at least 16 years of age and again hopefully inferring that mister Mc
Nicoll was have reached at least the tender age of 26 by this point and
hopefully for those more conservative (and realistic) 32. Further use of
physcology and profiling would lead me to guess Mr. Steven McNicoll has
recently passed the big 4-0 marker.

Yes he argues like my 6 year old, maybe Mrs. McNicolls will send him to
his room soon.

Paul Miner <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:32:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> So you're making up this whole theory that is completely novel in
>>> consumer law about you being able to keep defective equipment as
>>> long as you like
>>>
>>
>>Please cite where I said that.
>
> It might be a great time for you to go back and review your story. You
> said that multiple times now.
>
>
>>> But so far the only person being embarassed by your story is... you.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not at all embarassed by it. Why would I be?
>
> You may not be embarrassed by your actions now, but I think you
> probably will be once you get a little older, say into your twenties.
>

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And yet they offerred you an exchange UNDER WARRANTY (or good faith).
> But you did not complete the "exchange" portion, which would mean
> relinguishing ownership of the item to be replaced. You took ownership of
> a new/refurb sent to you, but failed to maintain a in-house stock of
> quantity 1.
>

Sprint maintains the warranty was void.


>
> As for moisture, they have these VERY sensitive (IMHO) indicators inside
> cell phones. If EVER exposed to water they permanently change, so no
> matter how much drying you do - if the unit was EVER exposed to moisture,
> it might continue to work or not, but it will always indicate it was
> exposed at some point. As I said, my father's phone would show signs of
> immersion, though it continues to work perfectly.
>

I covered that:

"Mr. Tisch told me water damage usually shows up as white deposits in the
accessories port. They also pointed out two black rectangles in the battery
compartment and one white rectangle on the battery itself. They told me
rectangles were moisture detectors and would change color if exposed to
moisture. The detectors in my daughter's phone showed no exposure to
moisture. The battery compartment cover is a good fit, but the compartment
is certainly not watertight. If this phone had been "immersed", as Ms.
Blondheim claims, the moisture detectors would surely have been tripped."

Isn't it odd that a Sprint "Retail Comunications Cunsultant" [sic] such as
Ms. Christina Lynn Blondheim would be unfamiliar with these moisture
detectors? Isn't it odder still that Sprint maintains the phone was
water-damaged knowing as they do that the moisture detectors were not
tripped?

The oddest thing is the consensus here that I was wrong not to trust Sprint!

Steph wrote:
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> Worthless to YOU. Because of the possibility it could indeed be
> >> repaired, as I described in my post in detail. D'oh. You're not even
> >> reading now, are you? Just auto-posting the same thing over and over.
> >>
> >
> > But it isn't worthless to me. To me it serves as proof that it was
> > not immersed. I don't have a case if I give it back to Sprint.
> >
> Well we hope it is worth $189, because it so far has cost you much more
> than that. I would guess $189 + 3 months service @ $30 per + late charges
> = $279.
>
> Add to that a possible early termination fee (once the account was
> deactivated for non-payment) and you are probably looking at collections
> coming after you for about $480.
>
> Now would be a good time to slap your head and realize you have made an a
> error and ask how to best resolve it. Then again, if ths all transpired
> in May... why start hashing it around now?

I think the OP should hold out, no matter what the cost.

His thinking, and associated posts, have become quite amusing! <g>

Notan

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

>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I'm sitting here shaking my head that you can just continue to dig a
>> deeper hole.
>>
>> No amount of protesting on your part will make you right.
>>
>
> Your insistence that I'm wrong will not make it so.
>
>
>>
>> If you believed the phone was not water damaged, you should not have
>> accepted another handset.
>>
>
> Nonsense. The phone was not water damaged, it had failed during the
> warranty period. Sprint was required to repair or replace it under
> the contract.
>
>
You are absolutely right.
How dare they not abide by the terms and conditions set forth in the
warranty. the phone failed during normal wear and use within the stated
warranty period and should have been repaired or replaced.

I understand the definition of repair as simplisitically, to make whole
again or restore. While of course we all agree replace means to
substitute with another.

What's that? Sprint did send you another handset as a waranty
replacement? Those bastards! <sarcasm>Well you were right to not send
the broken handset which they acknowledged as being covered under the
warranty back to them right away; in fact I think you should keep that
broken handset for about 1.5 years; yup, that ought to show those
stockholders who the boss is.</sarcasm>

Remember Popeye cartoons with Wimpy J. Wellington?
"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."

Little different than, "I'll gladly pay you next x-mas for a new cell
phone today. What oh you sent it already and I have 10 days to pay for
it?" No thanks, bite me.

>>
>> Plain and simple. You make it complicated with your illogical
>> circuitous reasoning and an abiding need to be "right", which in this
>> instance is impossible.
>>
>
> My reasoning is completely logical.

"I see in my dreams the visions an insance person sees while awake"?

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And you were not wronged in any way to have a charge for the value of
> that phone (on Sprint books) applied to your account until the time you
> return the phone at which time it might be credited back to your account
> at it's depreciated stock value.
>

Stock value wouldn't have been acceptable.


>
> If on the other hand you argue it had no value to either consumers or
> resellers/manufactuers it would be because it WAS water damaged. But of
> course, if it was not damaged via immersion as you maintained, then you
> knowingly are liable for the cost.
>

It is Sprint that maintains it was water damaged, and thus of no value to
either consumers or resellers/manufacturers. So why did they charge me
$189.99 for it?

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Actually per the message from Sprint to you dated May 10, 2006 which you
> posted, Sprint conceeded it was covered under warranty and they hoped to
> get you operational and happy as quick as possible.
>

Actually, they didn't say "covered under warranty", they said "still under
warranty". In a message dated June 2nd they said, "the warranty was void as
the phone was immersed in water".

Wow.. for someone that loves to post about history, military, labor laws,
and politics you are one messed up paranoid guy.
You now have quoted two messages from Sprint representatives stating they
wer sending you "a free replacement phone". Both messages also *****ed
out you were required to return the defective unit to them.

As I pointed out (many times now), sometimes Sprint actually just does
what is right by the Customer, outside of legal obligations. Whether your
phone is/was water-damaged or not is moot. they offerred to replace it to
make you happy and retain you as a Customer in good standing.

They replaced my Samsung N400 after I cracked the LCD screen which
obviosuly was not covered under warranty. But we were unable to reach an
agreeable alternative and they opted to comp me a refurbished phone in
exchange for the broken one and we all slept well that night.

You on the other hand have bought into some conspiracy theory that they
would get your phone back to the lab, label it with a big sticker that
says SCREW STEVEN P. MCNICOLL on it and drop it in the toilet three or
four times then call up your daughter and tell her she owed $189 on her
account becuase the phone they had offerred to replace for free truly was
damaged and they changed their mind andwere going to charge you instead.

I get it now, the above scenario is not only plausible to you, it is
probably exactly what yuo were thinking; that is why you held onto the
broken phone. That and you are thinking everybody sues these days, you
will keep it as proof so you can sue for damages later.

Well congratulation, as paranoia often does, you created a self-
fulfilling prophecy. Not really that hard to do when you throw honesty,
logic, and common sense out the window. Well that and pride. So they say
the phone was damaged and not a manufacturing fault. So what. Unlike your
4 dozens posts in this newsgroup at that point it was only your personal
pride that was hurt and noone else (except maybe your daughter) was the
wiser.
Now there are at least 2 dozen people that have read AND RESPONDED to
your tripe and each expressed their opinion that you were wronged, but
erred by not accepting the resolution.

So you have two handsets, suspended service for them, and a collections
mark on your credit report. At least your daughter can wear them as
matching earings.


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

>
> "Todd W" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> The only way they would send you a replacement phone is if they
>> decided that
>> they were incorrect in the determination that the phone had been
>> immersed. If they believed that the phone was immersed, they wouldn't
>> want it back.
>>
>
> I agree. I don't think they do believe the phone was immersed.
>
>
>>
>> I don't understand how you believe they still maintain that the phone
>> was immersed (and I read your entire discussion with them). They
>> agreed that the
>> initial inpection was incorrect, issued you a service credit, and
>> sent you a
>> new phone. Indeed, Nikki G (sprint supervisor) said in the initial
>> escalation email:
>>
>>> 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 920-265-1662.
>>> Since this phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following
>>> actions on your account:
>>
>> You got a personal apology from an escalation representative and a
>> statement
>> in writing that the phone is still under warranty. This email was the
>> pivot
>> point in the process. Here they were saying, "You're right, we're
>> wrong, and
>> we will do whatever is necessary to get you back on the phone."
>> Everything that has happened up to this point, although I'm sure was
>> fustrating and disappointing, had been wiped from the slate. What
>> more do you want?
>>
>
> The paragraph below is contained in the message from Leslie S. dated
> June 2nd, three weeks after I received the new phone:
>
> "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."
>
> I believe they still maintain that the phone was immersed because
> that's what they said. Nikki S. did say she was sorry for the
> frustration I experienced, but nobody representing Sprint has said,
> "You're right, we're wrong". Had they said they were wrong, had they
> admitted the phone had not been immersed and was being replaced as
> defective under the valid warranty, I would have had no reason to keep
> the phone until the end of the contract. Obviously, I wouldn't need to
> keep the phone in order to prove it hadn't been immersed once they
> admit it hadn't been immersed.
>
>
>>
>> I doubt if they wanted to examine the phone. They probably wanted it
>> so they
>> can get a new one from the manufacturer. If you would have sent back
>> the phone, the matter would have been closed.
>>
>
> Maybe. But what if they hadn't issued the credit after I sent the
> phone back? What recourse would I have then? How would I prove the
> warranty was still valid if I no longer had the phone?
>
> How can Sprint get a new phone from the manufacturer while maintaining
> it was immersed by a customer? They could certainly get one if it
> failed during the warranty period, but that's not their position.
>
>
>

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

>
> "John Richards" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Sprint gave you a free replacement phone as a matter of good will,
>> eventhough they are of the opinion that the defective phone was
>> immersed. Why then do you feel there is still a need to hold on to
>> the old phone for the
>> purpose of being able to prove it was NOT immersed? Why should
>> you care what Sprint believes? The email they sent you means that at
>> this point they don't care if the phone was immersed or not, and
>> there will be no repercussions even if they decide later that the old
>> phone was immersed.
>>
>
> I just explained that. I didn't believe they'd remove the charge for
> the new phone.
>
LOL, what a sap!
And because you did not return the defective unit Sprint did as they said
they would and applied the $189 cost to your bill. Self-fullfiling
defeatest. Is there ANY possible way you would believe they would remove
the charge? Why accept delivery until you were comfortable with the
arrangement? If you believe they woudl lie, how could they possibly
resolve this? They could come out and say Ms. so-so was wrong or lying
and they are sorry for your anguish --- but you would only think it was a
lie and attept to trick you.

"Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Well we hope it is worth $189, because it so far has cost you much more
> than that. I would guess $189 + 3 months service @ $30 per + late charges
> = $279.
>
> Add to that a possible early termination fee (once the account was
> deactivated for non-payment) and you are probably looking at collections
> coming after you for about $480.
>
> Now would be a good time to slap your head and realize you have made an a
> error and ask how to best resolve it. Then again, if ths all transpired
> in May... why start hashing it around now?
>

So far it has cost me just $5.36, postage via certified mail with a return
receipt. That was for the documents sent to Sprint. There'll be a bit more
postage for letters sent to credit reporting agencies disputing the claims
of Sprint and the succession of collection agencies they'll turn to in an
effort to harass and intimidate me to pay. It won't work and they'll
eventually drop it.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > And you were not wronged in any way to have a charge for the value of
> > that phone (on Sprint books) applied to your account until the time you
> > return the phone at which time it might be credited back to your account
> > at it's depreciated stock value.
> >
>
> Stock value wouldn't have been acceptable.
>
> >
> > If on the other hand you argue it had no value to either consumers or
> > resellers/manufactuers it would be because it WAS water damaged. But of
> > course, if it was not damaged via immersion as you maintained, then you
> > knowingly are liable for the cost.
> >
>
> It is Sprint that maintains it was water damaged, and thus of no value to
> either consumers or resellers/manufacturers. So why did they charge me
> $189.99 for it?

Again, whether it's of any value, or not, is moot.

It belongs to Sprint.

Actually, at this point it doesn't... YOU OWN IT! <G>

Notan

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

> "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>> "Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> b) Why should we answer? It will just start another 50-post thread in
>>> which you argue irrationally with everyone who comments. We are not
>>> customer service representatives who will acquiesce and pretend to
>>> like it, just to keep a customer; or issue you a new phone just to
>>> make you quiet. We're just regular everyday consumers who like to
>>> "stick it to the big corporations" as much as the next guy, but won't
>>> be bludgeoned into changing our minds.... and who tried to show you
>>> the error of your ways. (Not one person agreed with your ultimate
>>> decision, did you notice?)
>>>
>>
>> Who do you presume to speak for?
>>
> I'll come forward and let Bill speak for me.
> I agreed with everything, that is 100% of what he wrote.
> So he speaks for at least himself and one other, that is sufficient for
> the proper use of "we".
>
> Don't worry, I will speak up if Bill misrepresents my opinion on this
> matter; but until then he has my permission to continue to represent my
> opinion in his postings.
>
> Do you think you will find someone to agree with 100% of your opinion?
>
>

Add me to the list as well- Bill speaks for me. That would make it Bill-3
Clueless Troll-0.

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

>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> You are not giving the full story.
>> Sprint originally claimed your daughter's phone was inoperable due to
>> immersion damage. They later recanted and shipped a replacement with
>> a Return Kit. You opted to not return the damaged phone fearing they
>> would reasses it, claim it was damage caused by immersion (despite a
>> 2 to 1 stacking of CSR tehcnicians in your favor) and charge you full
>> price for replacing the handset.
>>
>
> That's not correct. Sprint did NOT recant, it is still their position
> that the original phone was immersed and the warranty void.
>
>
>


Fine, I was mere hours behind on my reading.
I concede Sprint has suspicions the phone truly was damaged and not
covered under warranty (conflicting emails). However, both emails
indicated they were willing to orchestrate a free handset replacement in
an attempt to appease the Customer. Unfortunately they did not know who
they were dealing with.

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

>
> "Steph" <[email protected]_CUT> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And yet they offerred you an exchange UNDER WARRANTY (or good faith).
>> But you did not complete the "exchange" portion, which would mean
>> relinguishing ownership of the item to be replaced. You took
>> ownership of a new/refurb sent to you, but failed to maintain a
>> in-house stock of quantity 1.
>>
>
> Sprint maintains the warranty was void.
>
Moot point as the story progressed.
>
>>
>> As for moisture, they have these VERY sensitive (IMHO) indicators
>> inside cell phones. If EVER exposed to water they permanently change,
>> so no matter how much drying you do - if the unit was EVER exposed to
>> moisture, it might continue to work or not, but it will always
>> indicate it was exposed at some point. As I said, my father's phone
>> would show signs of immersion, though it continues to work perfectly.
>>
>
> I covered that:
>
> "Mr. Tisch told me water damage usually shows up as white deposits in
> the accessories port. They also pointed out two black rectangles in
> the battery compartment and one white rectangle on the battery itself.
> They told me rectangles were moisture detectors and would change
> color if exposed to moisture. The detectors in my daughter's phone
> showed no exposure to moisture. The battery compartment cover is a
> good fit, but the compartment is certainly not watertight. If this
> phone had been "immersed", as Ms. Blondheim claims, the moisture
> detectors would surely have been tripped."
>

Again moot. I was not claiming the phone was or was not malfunctioning
due to exposure to moisture.

> Isn't it odd that a Sprint "Retail Comunications Cunsultant" [sic]
> such as Ms. Christina Lynn Blondheim would be unfamiliar with these
> moisture detectors? Isn't it odder still that Sprint maintains the
> phone was water-damaged knowing as they do that the moisture detectors
> were not tripped?

Was that little play really necessary?
Very childish, and not really that great a pun.
If I recall, Ms. B (let's not trash her name all over usenet) was who
helped your daughter at the counter. To my knowledge, they do not do any
of the technician work. There should have been a second person to view
the phone and report back to Ms B. Of course you were entitled to a
second opinion which you did seek out.
In the end, though it also is moot for anything other than your pride.
Court battles are settled all the time by not admitting guilt. Sprint
simply said, "we can't prove or not the handset was water damaged but we
want you as a Customer so we will go ahead and do the free exchange".
Obviosuly I am paraphrasing, so don't latch onto any of that.

You were just pissed they didn't come knocking on your door with a big
fat check, tv cameras, and offer to kiss your ass.
You got resolution, but were too stubborn to see and consequently dug
yourself a little financial hole.

Luckily you don't consider the account being sent to collections to be an
issue, so you should probably stay away from Sprint and this group.


>
> The oddest thing is the consensus here that I was wrong not to trust
> Sprint!
>

Given this being UseNet, you are right it is odd that people are arguing
you were wrong to not trust Sprint. Then again, 1 person against untold
dozens with 100's of threads -- now that is classic UseNet and troll
patterns.

Paul Miner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:55:18 -0700, Notan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I think the OP should hold out, no matter what the cost.
> >
> >His thinking, and associated posts, have become quite amusing! <g>
> >
> >Notan
>
> You're a sick b*st*rd.

And proud of it! <g>

Notan