Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is more to your contract than the dates. You just refuse to
> acknowldge that.
>

But I do acknowledge that. Everything on that piece of paper is part of the
contract. What you refuse to acknowledge is that which is not on that paper
is not part of the contract.

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> There is more to your contract than the dates. You just refuse to
>> acknowldge that.
>>
>
> But I do acknowledge that. Everything on that piece of paper is part of
> the contract. What you refuse to acknowledge is that which is not on that
> paper is not part of the contract.
>

And your keeping the old handset is *NOT* on the contract. You just make
that up as you went along, and expect Sprint to play your silly little game.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Now you have simple destroyed any tiny shred of credibility you had left.
>> Previous to the line above, I thought you were stubborn. Now I realize I
>> was wrong. You are, in fact, quite stupid. Are you really so bereft of
>> any functioning brain cells that you would believe that activation the
>> handset does not constitute an agreement to their terms of service?
>>
>
> Let me state it for you in real simple terms.
>
> Absent any language stating that activation of the handset constituted
> agreement to their terms of service, activation of the handset was NOT an
> agreement to their terms of service.
>
> There was no language stating that activation of the handset constituted
> agreement to their terms of service.
>
> Do you understand now?
>

It is you who does not understand. It is you who twists things around. It
is you who is being a big crybaby over something that should have been let
go a long time ago.

You are not "right". You cannot be right in this scenario. Sprint treated
you with more respect and dignity than you deserve, and you act like a
spoiled child...stomping your feet and demanding more. It is too bad that
Sprint can't make you go stand in the corner for 24 hours.

You are just a self-centered, whining little ingrate. Let it go....

Bobby

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> And your keeping the old handset is *NOT* on the contract.
>

Correct. There is nothing written on any contract that I was a party to
that prevents me from keeping the old handset to the end of the period
covered by the subscriber's agreement. Thank you for finally conceding that
point.


>
> You just make that up as you went along, and expect Sprint to play your
> silly little game.
>

Just as Sprint did with me.

"Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Let me state it for you in real simple terms.
>>
>> Absent any language stating that activation of the handset constituted
>> agreement to their terms of service, activation of the handset was NOT an
>> agreement to their terms of service.
>>
>> There was no language stating that activation of the handset constituted
>> agreement to their terms of service.
>>
>> Do you understand now?
>>
>
> It is you who does not understand. It is you who twists things around.
> It is you who is being a big crybaby over something that should have been
> let go a long time ago.
>
> You are not "right". You cannot be right in this scenario. Sprint
> treated you with more respect and dignity than you deserve, and you act
> like a spoiled child...stomping your feet and demanding more. It is too
> bad that Sprint can't make you go stand in the corner for 24 hours.
>
> You are just a self-centered, whining little ingrate. Let it go....
>

I'll take that as a "No".

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

>
> "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> From what I understand, you've since been issued the credit. What's
>> the point
>> in keeping the phone?
>>
>
> I haven't been issued the credit. Sprint still maintains the phone
> was immersed. If I return the phone I cannot prove it was not. Had
> they conceded that the phone had not been immersed, that their agent
> was wrong to declare that it had been, I would have had no reason to
> keep it. I would have returned it upon receipt of the new phone and
> would still be a Sprint customer.
>
>
>

.....but what is to be gained from this game?
You argued the phone was not immersed, they knocked you around a little
(we all agree) - but eventually consented to swap the handset that did
not work for a working handset.

You could have asked to have the exchange done at a Sprint store.

I am missing your point, because you got what you were asking for. Yes
they applied a $189 charge to your account after you did not return the
non-functional phone within the set upon 10 day period.

You then even received a month's credit (or more?), but you still hold
onto a non-working phone (which accomplishes what?).

There are two dates that get tracked.... your contract start/end dates
and the handset activation. They are tracked separately. Activating a
replacment handset resets the 18 month until you qualify for a rebate on
a new handset - warranty or not.

Does it really matter if they called it a warranty replacement versus a
"this guy pissed us off and won't stop sending e-mails and we know we
were wrong but hey, we are a phone company noone can pin anything on us
let's just send him a stupid replacement at no charge so our outsourced
support to India doesn't end up costing us more"?

Honest many of us thought you (OP) were wronged, right up until you got
what you asked for. After that it made no sense.

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

>
> "Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> 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... ;-)
>>
>
> No, just to the end of the contract period.
>

Aaah, sentimental momentos
Sitting around the campfire remembering days past when that silly old
cellphone your daughter carried was flagged as waterlogged, but got
replaced at no charge anyway... that is until it was unilateraly decided to
keep the old damaged phone (at a well explained cost of $189) just so there
would be stories to tell around the campfire.

Listen, if you close your eyes and sit silent you can still hear the ring
of the non-water-damaged cell phone; oh wait, that was mine I forgot to
set it to vibrate - sorry.

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

>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> And your keeping the old handset is *NOT* on the contract.
>>
>
> Correct. There is nothing written on any contract that I was a party
> to that prevents me from keeping the old handset to the end of the
> period covered by the subscriber's agreement. Thank you for finally
> conceding that point.
>

From your own quoting:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sprint Customer Solutions" <[email protected]>
To: "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Mcnicoll- Handset Problem (KMM20183982I123L0KM)


> Dear Steven,
>
> This email is in continuation to your correspondence regarding the
> handset problem.
>
> 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 NNN-NNN-NNNN. Since
this
> phone is still under warranty, I am taking the following actions on
your
> account:
>
> 1. I am sending a new Sanyo 2300 handset at the following address:
>
> 1851 South Sunkist Circle
> De Pere, WI- 54115
>
> The handset processing confirmation number is PK9J343.
>
> 2. I am applying the temporary credit of $189.99 (equal to the price of
> the handset) on your account;
>
> 3. I am also sending the Return Kit for the Sanyo 2300 handset you
> currently have so that you can return the same.
>
> Upon receipt of the handset and the Return Kit, please take the
> following actions:
>
> 1. Call us at 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone to get the new
> handset activated;
> 2. Return the Sanyo 2300 handset you currently have by keeping the same
> in the Return Kit.
> 3. Write back to us with the tracking number of the Return Kit.
>
> When the handset is received in the Warehouse, I will apply the
> permanent credit of $189.99 to your account. However, if the handset
> does not reach Warehouse within 10 days, your account will be charged
> $189.99 (equal to the price of the new handset).
>
> Please feel free to write back if you have any other questions. Have a
> great day!
>
> Nikki G.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"


Nikki -
o acknowledged the phone was under warranty
o issued a temporary credit for the replacement (valued at $189)
o also sent a Return Kit in which to return the damaged unit
o CLEARLY specified you were to return the broken handset replaced under
warranty or be charged the value of the new handset.

They met everything you wanted them to.
But then you somehow latched onto the need for a more clear admission of
the CS agent's error and as another person said, "derailed".
Basic contract law says you and Sprint had an agreement to replace the
handset under warranty (yeah yeah yeah, you go the runaround, a lot
first) in exchange for returning the old handset within 10 days. You
broke that contract.

As for Sprint breaking/violating any other contractual agreements, don't
know, maybe, probably, but in the end (well okay 3/4 of the way) they
made good and offerred to replace it under warranty.

Had you been in a Sprint store when they agreed to this, your broken
phone would have disappeared and you walk out with a shiny new one,
without the hassle of sending it back.

Perahps this wil change your mind and you can admit making an error. If
not please do try to enlighten us as to how you were entitled to hold
onto the exchanged handset. You cannot have two handsets (ESN's) tied to
a contract.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Hertz_Donut" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Let me state it for you in real simple terms.
>>>
>>> Absent any language stating that activation of the handset constituted
>>> agreement to their terms of service, activation of the handset was NOT
>>> an agreement to their terms of service.
>>>
>>> There was no language stating that activation of the handset constituted
>>> agreement to their terms of service.
>>>
>>> Do you understand now?
>>>
>>
>> It is you who does not understand. It is you who twists things around.
>> It is you who is being a big crybaby over something that should have been
>> let go a long time ago.
>>
>> You are not "right". You cannot be right in this scenario. Sprint
>> treated you with more respect and dignity than you deserve, and you act
>> like a spoiled child...stomping your feet and demanding more. It is too
>> bad that Sprint can't make you go stand in the corner for 24 hours.
>>
>> You are just a self-centered, whining little ingrate. Let it go....
>>
>
> I'll take that as a "No".
>

I do not understand your foolishness. Everyone else on this planet
understands that you are wrong. You are the lone idiot who thinks
otherwise.

You have severe ego issues...it must really suck being you.

Honu

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>
> I haven't been issued the credit. Sprint still maintains the phone was
> immersed. If I return the phone I cannot prove it was not. Had they
> conceded that the phone had not been immersed, that their agent was wrong to
> declare that it had been, I would have had no reason to keep it. I would
> have returned it upon receipt of the new phone and would still be a Sprint
> customer.

You have it in writing (via a Sprint email) that they gave you a new
phone even though Sprint believed that the old phone was immersed.
So why should you care if, after you return the old phone, Sprint
decides that it really was immersed? They won't go back on their
written word.

--
John Richards

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

That's not your call to make. Even if most of the electronic innards
were toast, the shell and LCD screen might still be good.

--
John Richards

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

None of us knows what sort of financial arrangements exist between Sprint
and the various phone manufacturers. It's possible that Sprint can get a
partial credit even for an immersed phone. You are not in a position to
second-guess such arrangements. Sprint has a rule that the customer
*must* return the old phone when Sprint supplies a replacement phone.
You can't just conjure up your own exception to that rule.

--
John Richards

At 07 Nov 2006 19:21:54 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> > I suspect you did by activating the phone.
>
> Nope.

Fine- as meticulous as your recounting of this affair is, I suspect you
kept whatever paperwork was sent with the phone.

So far in this thread, you've managed to quote a dozen rounds of e-mail
correspondence, the entire Sprint manufacturer's warranty, and a half-
page of Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

Why not post the instructions and terms sent with the replacement handet
and prove us all wrong? Unless you contend there was absolutely nothing
in the box except the phone?

> It's different with Sprint, there's no such language that states
activating
> the handset constitutes agreement with the terms.

It will be interesting if anyone else here on the party line can back you
up on that with their own experiences. Someone lurking here must have
had a handset replaced not too long ago...

> > 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.
>
> Well, it wasn't *****ed out, and I don't care if you believe me or not.

I didn't really expect you to care what I think. Considering the
opinions and positions of others doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

> > Sure. Right after the arbitrator orders you to write a $200+ check to
> > Sprint (the $400 you owe them, less the $189 handset.)>
>
> Arbitration is part of the agreement, did Sprint not void that
agreement
> when they refused to stand by it? Is the agreement only binding on the
> consumer?

At best, Sprint DELAYED standing by it. You keep conveniently forgetting
they eventually capitulated to all of your demands (except the insane one
about keeping your dead phone as evidence)- they gave youa replacement
phone and service credits for downtime. What part of the agreement did
they NOT honor?

Is there a clause in the Sprint contract stating "we'll never mistakenly
claim you immersed a phone?"

It took a good deal of work on your part, but they honored their end of
the agreement, and you did not.

Only your stubborn refusal to return the defective phone, and your
refusal to pay your bill because they charged you for the phone you
refused to return (after more than fair warning) got your service shut
off and your bill turned over to collections.

No arbitrator, creditor, jury or even consumer advocate Ralph Nader would
agree with your position!
>

> > (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?)
> >
>
> Nope, but as I pointed out in another message responses in these forums
> don't tend to be of the "I agree" variety but of the "You're fulla
crap"
> variety.

....and yet no one has claimed that I or anyone else refuting your
position is "fulla crap."

In all likelyhood, you're lucky you signed up for Verizon befoe this
shreaded your credit report. While a cellphone service chargeoff will
have VERY little effect on your credit score overall, it's a highly
weighted factor in the credit deposit determination of other cellular
companies. Obviously, as the theory goes, if you'd stop paying Sprint
because you felt it justified (rightly or wrongly), Verizon, Cingular, et
al, would have to assume you'd do it to them as well the minute their
service drops below your standards. That makes you a far riskier
customer than someone with a much lower overall credit rating, but never
left a service provider holding the bag.

BTW, seeing that this entire thread has gotten WAAAY out of hand, let me
be the first to congratulate you on a fine bit o' trolling. We all
swallowed hook, line, and sinker, and came back for more. Nice work!over

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

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> First of all, you only have two choices at this point: (1) take no
> action other than to accept the hit to your credit report and pay (or
> not) what you owe, and (2) insist on taking it to arbitration. It
> won't go to court because it won't get past arbitration.
>

I can deal with the attempts to damage my credit rating. I'm quite familiar
with the procedures involved. They can't hurt me there.

Arbitration is not an option. If Sprint wants to take further action
they'll have to go to court. They won't do that because it would be more
damaging than what they could recover.


>
> Secondly, it seems possible, in theory anyway, that an arbitrator
> might become aware of your account of events here in this newsgroup.
> If that happens, you're sunk, especially since you confirmed earlier
> that your account is accurate. No reasonable person would side with
> you once they've read all the way through, regardless of how much
> initial sympathy they might have had for you.
>

Every reasonable person will side with me.

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> I have absolutely no problem taking your word that you'd have returned
> the phone as you say. Oh wait, yes I do have a problem believing that.
>

Why?