Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"[email protected]" <"Tony"@tonys.home> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Has anybody dealt with a failure of a Sprint branded Sanyo phone during
> the warranty period? My wife's phone has gone bad and Sprint is sending
> her to Sanyo and Sanyo says on their Web site that Sprint handles it.
>

I had a Sanyo VI-2300 fail during the warranty period. Sprint refused to
honor the warranty, claiming instead that the phone had been immersed in
water and the warranty was thus void. I wrote up the episode for
Complaints.com not long ago:


On April 29th last my daughter visited the Sprint Store at 2388 South Oneida
Street in Green Bay, WI, for service on her Sanyo VI-2300. She'd been
having trouble with that phone for about three months by then. She spoke
with "Retail Comunications Cunsultant" [sic] Christina Lynn Blondheim. Ms.
Blondheim examined the phone briefly and declared it to be water damaged and
the warranty void.

I couldn't find the slightest hint of any damage from water or any kind of
abuse on the phone. There wasn't a trace of any moisture within the clear
plastic buttons or the accessories port. All metal parts were clean and
free of corrosion. There were no cracks in the case or impact marks from
being dropped. All buttons worked smoothly without sticking. Other than
some very small scratches on the exterior that one would expect as a result
of being carried in a purse the phone appeared as new, and still does.


On May 1st I spoke on the phone with a Sprint representative who informed me
that Ms.
Blondheim had recorded in her notes that the phone had been "immersed" and
the warranty was thus void. I also visited the Sprint Store at 1601
Lawrence Drive in De Pere, WI. I asked the Sprint representatives there,
Jason Freeman and Mike Tisch, to examine the phone for water damage. They
could not find any. 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.

Clearly, this phone has not been exposed to any appreciable amount of
moisture at any time. If Ms. Blondheim believed it had, she is merely
incompetent; if she was aware it had not, then she was lying. In either
case she is not fit to hold her present position.

I informed Sprint via email of this episode and explained that they could
not refuse to honor a valid warranty without voiding the service agreement.
Their response, and the successive give and take via email, follow verbatim:

>
> Dear Steven,
>
> I apologize for the inconvenience you have experienced regarding the PCS
> Phone on your account. Thank you for contacting Sprint together with
> Nextel in this regard.
>
> I have reviewed your account records and noticed that the phone warranty
> has been voided since it has been verified to be dropped in water.
> Please note that the phone damage due to water is not covered under
> manufacturer's warranty.
>
> 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.
>
> To find the nearest Sprint Store, please click on the hyperlink below:
>
> http://www.sprintstorelocator.com/
>
> Thank you for emailing us. We appreciate your relationship with us, and
> look forward to serving you in the future.
>
> Parry S.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Parry,

It has been verified that the phone in question has been dropped in water?
Please explain to me EXACTLY how that was done.

You wrote; "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." If you had actually read my message you would
have known that I already did take it to another Sprint Store and the
technicians there could not find any trace of water damage.

I suggest you read my message again. REALLY read it this time. Read it with
the understanding that my experience with Sprint's customer service will be
forwarded to various consumer groups and shared with millions via the
internet. You might want to select another course of action in this matter.

You have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for contacting Sprint together with Nextel.
>
> I do realize that you wish to notify us regarding your PCS Phone.
>
> I have read your email and noticed that you are not satisfied by the
> diagnostic check performed by the technician at the Sprint store.
>
> On your account, it has been notified that the warranty is void as the
> phone is dropped in water, I may not be able to replace the PCS Phone on
> your account.
>
> Further, considering the long time association, I offer to waive $75.00
> from the cost of new phone. For this, you will need to purchase a new
> phone at the full price and write back to us so that we can apply the
> $75.00 credit on your account.
>
> Thank you again for emailing us, I enjoyed helping you and look forward
> to working with you in future. Have a great day.
>
> Parry S.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Greetings,

Two days ago a complaint I sent to [email protected] was
forwarded to Parry S. of E-Care. Parry isn't handling it well, it appears to
me that English is not his first language. I've attached the exchange to the
bottom of this message.

Parry doesn't seem to be able to understand that my phone was not "dropped
in water", that it was only "immersed" in the imagination of "Retail
Comunications Cunsultant" [sic] Christina Lynn Blondheim. You might want to
take this matter out of Parry's hands and assign it to someone with a better
grasp of the language.

Oh, by the way, your slogan, "Where our customers come first!", is a load of
crap. Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> I have read all the previous interactions regarding your phone issue and
>realize that you have been inconvenienced by the situation.
>
> We have now considered all aspects associated with your case and now offer
> to apply $150.00 as the discount on the purchase of the new PCS Phone.
>
> For this, you will need to purchase a new phone at the full price and
> write back to us so that we can apply the $150.00 credit on your account.
>
> We value your loyalty and look forward to serving you for years to come.
> Thank you.
>
> Parry S.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Parry,

You've read all my previous messages? Then why did you suggest I have the
phone examined at another Sprint Store AFTER I'd written that I had the
phone examined at another Sprint Store?

Why haven't you answered my question? You said it has been verified that
the phone has been dropped in water. "Verify" means "to prove the truth of
by presentation of evidence or testimony." I asked you to please explain
to me EXACTLY how that was done. What evidence was used to support Ms.
Blondheim's assertion that this phone had been immersed in water?

Your offer of a $150.00 discount on the purchase of a replacement phone that
carries a price of $189.99 is not satisfactory. This phone is still under
warranty and it should be replaced under that warranty.

I don't think I'll be with Sprint for years to come. You can't expect to
create a solid base of loyal customers when you refuse to honor your
warranty.

You have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Veronica,
>
> Thank you for replying back to us.
>
> The maximum credit which we can apply to your account is $150.00.
>
> Further, you can contact us at 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone or by
> dialing *2TALK from your phone. Our specialist will be glad to assist
> you.
>
> We do have high call volumes at times, which are responsible for long hold
> times. However, if you would like to contact us between the hours of 6:00
> a.m. and 10:00 a.m. CST, we have lower call volumes and would be
> able to answer your call quicker.
>
> Thank you for emailing us. We appreciate your relationship with us, and
> look forward to serving you in the future.
>
> Christopher
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Christopher,

I called that number you provided at 8:53AM CDT today, I spoke with
"Jessie". Jessie informed me that Ms. Blondheim wrote in the notations that
my daughter "admitted she dropped it in water". My daughter did not drop
this phone in any water and certainly did not admit to something she did not
do. What she actually told Ms. Blondheim was that the phone was in her
canvas purse along with a bottle of drinking water. She noticed a wet spot
on the side of her purse. She immediately opened the purse, removed the
phone, and sealed the bottle tightly. She examined the phone and found no
water on it, then placed it in a pocket. All she told Ms. Blondheim was
that the phone MAY have gotten wet. She didn't know for certain if it had
or had not. To Ms. Blondheim this is an admission that the phone was
"dropped in water", that it had been "immersed".

I went to see Ms. Blondheim today at the Sprint Store. After reviewing her
notes she remembered my daughter's visit. I asked her how she determined
the phone was damaged by water. She told me she took it to the back room
and had a technician examine it, and the technician found corrosion in the
accessories port. But my daughter told me Ms. Blondheim returned the phone
to her before going to the back room to consult with the manager. The only
person to examine the phone at the Sprint Store that day was Ms. Blondheim.
Two days later a technician at the Sprint Store in De Pere could not find
any corrosion in the accessories port or anywhere else. Ms. Blondheim was
unable to explain why the supposed immersion of the phone did not trip any
of the moisture detectors.

Ms. Blondheim told me that Sprint does not provide the warranty on the
phone, that it is done by Sanyo. She told me Sprint could process the
warranty claim for a fee of $50.00 (it may have been $55.00, I can't be
sure). But the warranty in the Sprint PCS Phone Guide for the Sanyo VI-2300
says "SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., (Sprint) offers you a limited warranty...";
"For a period of one (1) year from the date of purchase, Sprint will, at its
option, either pay the parts and labor charges to any authorized PCS® Phone
service facility to repair or replace a defective product..." "Sanyo"
doesn't
appear anywhere in the warranty that I can see.

The warranty lists a number of events that void the warranty of the phone,
none of them have happened to this phone. Sprint is refusing to honor a
valid warranty, refusal to honor the valid warranty constitutes breach of
the subscriber agreement by Sprint.

Parry S. of E-Care told me it had been verified that the phone had been
dropped in water. I twice asked him how that was accomplished, but he
ignored my requests. It's really a very simple question. "Verify" means
"to prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony." Now I'm
asking you, what evidence was used to support Ms. Blondheim's assertion that
this phone had been immersed in water? I really do expect an answer. If
you can't tell me how it was verified I have to conclude he lied to me when
he said that it had.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
>Thank you for replying back to us.
>
> Your account and issue has been analyzed and reviewed with a supervisor.
> We have understood and considered all of the facts and issues raised in
> your most recent communication.
> Please contact us at 1-888-211-4727 and once you reach our Interactive
> Voice Recognition System, give the verbal command "Supervisor or Manager"
> and your call will be forwarded to a supervisor.
> Thank you for emailing us. We appreciate your relationship with us, and
> look forward to serving you in the future.
>
> Christopher
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>

Dear Christopher,

It is now 8:35 AM CDT. I just tried that number you provided. I did
exactly what you said, I called 1-888-211-4727 and once I reached your
Interactive Voice Recognition System, I gave the verbal command "Supervisor
or Manager". A female voice came on the line and asked how she could help
me. I responded that I received an email from Sprint
directing me to call that number and ask for a supervisor or manager. The
line was then silent for some ten seconds or so, then there was a busy
signal.

I'm a patient man, but my patience with Sprint has grown extremely thin.
I'm through playing games with your phone system and exchanging email. If
Sprint wishes to resolve this issue have someone in a position to take the
necessary corrective actions call me at 920-336-9163 at noon CDT today.
Have that person be prepared to answer my previously asked questions which
have been ignored.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> A representative will be contacting you within 48 hours as you requested.
> Please allow us time to research your issue, before we contact you back.
>
> I appreciate you emailing us today.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Angel,

Three days ago Christopher of E-Care wrote; "Your account and issue has been
analyzed and reviewed with a supervisor. We have understood and considered
all of the facts and issues raised in your most recent communication." If
it was analyzed, reviewed, and understood three days ago why would any time
be needed to research it now? Who was Christopher referring to?

Is there not one person at Sprint that gives a damn about customer service?

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> In order to help you in a better way we require to research your issue.
> Therefore, please co-operate with us.
>
> Our specialist will be contacting you within 48 hours.
>
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for writing back to us.
> The best way to resolve your billing concerns is via verbal conversation
> over the phone. Therefore, I have forwarded your case to our Billing
> Department and one of the representatives will call you on 920-336-9163
> within next 24-48 hours.
>
> It sometimes is much easier to resolve the issue when talking live over
> the phone.
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Merwin
> Business E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


>
> 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 920-265-1662. 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:
>
> De Pere, WI
>
> 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!"
>


Dear Nikki,

The replacement Sanyo 2300 handset was received and activated on May 11th.
The original Sanyo 2300 handset which was purchased on July 9, 2005, will
be
returned to Sprint at the end of the Subscriber Agreement, December 16,
2007,
upon receipt of a statement showing a zero balance.

Approximately three months elapsed between the date which Sprint was made
aware of the problems with this handset and the date it was finally
replaced.
Clearly, if the phone is not functioning properly the service I'm paying for
is not
being provided. Therefore Sprint must issue a credit for three months of
service
on the 920-NNN-NNNN line.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for contacting Sprint together with Nextel about the handset.
>
> The handset that you have received on May 11, 2006 was sent as a
> replacement for your existing Sanyo 2300 handset which you initially
> activated on July 09, 2005. In doing this, your Subscriber Agreement has
> not been extended.
>
> For completing the replacement process, you have to return the previous
> Sanyo 2300 handset. If the handset is not returned, the system will apply
> the charge of $189.99 (equal to the price of the new handset) to the
> account.
>
> Please return the previous Sanyo 2300 handset (ESN:2D940731) in the Return
> Kit sent across with the new handset within 10 days.
>
> 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!"
>


Dear Nikki,

You're correct that the handset that I received on May 11, 2006, that was
sent as a replacement for my existing Sanyo 2300 handset which I initially
activated on July 9, 2005, does not extend my Subscriber Agreement. My
Subscriber Agreement was extended when I purchased two additional phones and
upgraded service on
December 16, 2005.

However, you're incorrect when you say the previous Sanyo 2300 handset must
be returned to complete the replacement process. That process was completed
on May 11th when I activated the replacement handset. I fully understand
your desire to obtain the original handset. It constitutes the only
physical proof that
Sprint attempted to void a valid warranty by declaring the phone had been
immersed in water. For that same reason I must retain that phone to the end
of the contract. At that time, upon receipt of a statement showing a zero
balance, I will
return the original Sanyo 2300 handset (ESN:2D940731) in the Return Kit sent
across with the new handset.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back to us. I would be happy to assist you with
> the replacement.
>
> The Sanyo 2300 (ESN: 2D940731) was activated on the account on July 09,
> 2005. At that time you would have made the payment towards the price of
> the handset. Since you made 1 payment, you cannot have two handsets with
> you. You need to return 1 handset in order to complete the transaction
> and cancel the charge for the second handset.
>
> If the handset is not returned before June 03, 2006, the account will be
> charged for the price of the second handset.
>
> It was a pleasure assisting you and I look forward to more opportunities
> to serve you in future. Have a great day!
>
> Nikki G.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Nikki,

There will be no charge for the replacement handset. That handset will be
returned to Sprint at the termination of the present contract upon receipt
of a statement showing a zero balance.

There will be a credit for the three months of service that I paid for on
this line but was not provided by Sprint.

This is not a negotiation.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back to us about the handset issue. I would
> be happy to assist you.
>
> A representative will be contacting you in this regard. Please allow us
> time to research your issue, before we contact you back in the next
> 24-48 hours
>
> Thank you for emailing us. We appreciate your relationship with us, and
> look forward to serving you in the future.
>
> Edwin V.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Edwin,

The credits for the handset and the three months of lost service have not
yet been applied to my account. As you know, payments are being
withheld on this account until these corrections are made. The monthly
service
charge on the 920-NNN-NNNN line is $69.99. Taxes, surcharges and fees for
the
three months concerned were $37.83 and the charge for the replacement
handset mistakenly charged to my account is $189.99 for a total of
$437.79.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> I can see how you feel a credit to your account is required here.
> However, after looking at your account and going through the entire
> issue and interactions which you had with us through phone and email, I
> am sorry to inform you that it will not be possible to apply a credit
> against the three months of service and handset (until the old handset
> is returned).
>
> 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.
>
> If the old phone is not returned by June 04, 2006, the system will
> automatically charge $189.99 on the account.
>
> I appreciate you emailing us today. Thanks.
>
> Leslie S.
> Business E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Leslie,

I have received your requests that I pay again for the phone and also for
the services that were not provided by Sprint. Those requests are
denied.

The phone was not immersed, the warranty was in full force and the phone
was replaced under the warranty. There is no charge for replacement under
warranty, that charge must be removed.

Full service was not available during the three months that Sprint
refused to honor the warranty. Those service charges are to be refunded.

Once these corrections are made to my account payments to Sprint will
resume.

The original handset will be returned to Sprint at the end of the
contract period upon receipt of a statement showing a zero balance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for contacting Sprint together with Nextel. I understand the
> inconvenience you have experienced while trying to get the issue resolved.
> As explained earlier, it is not possible to apply the credit for three
> months of service. However, taking your case as an exception, we can
> apply the credit for one month of service. If you agree to this, write
> back to us and we will be glad to assist you. Also, the replacement phone
> has been sent to you at no extra charge as of May 10, 2006. However, you
> are requested to return the old handset at the earliest.
> Thank you for emailing us. Have a great day!
>
> Shana M.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Shana,

I agree to a credit of one month of service. A month is fair as there was
partial service during that three month period. I demanded a full refund
for partial service only because Sprint demanded full payment for partial
service. The monthly service charge is $69.99, taxes, surcharges, and
fees were $19.56, and the charge for the replacement handset was $189.99.
Once these credits appear on my statement payments will resume. The
original
handset will be returned to Sprint at the end of the contract period upon
receipt of a statement showing a zero balance.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for contacting Sprint together with Nextel. I understand your
> concern about the credit for one month of service.
>
> Looking at the inconvenience you have experienced, I have adjusted your
> account with a credit of $89.55. This credit will be reflected on your
> next invoice. You are requested to return the handset at the earliest.
> As explained earlier, the amount of $189.99 will be billed to your
> account if the old phone is not returned to us.
>
> Thank you for emailing us. Have a great day!
>
> Shana M.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Shana,

As explained earlier, the phone was replaced under warranty. As there is no
charge for replacement under warranty the $189.99 charge for the replacement
phone is an error on the part of Sprint and must be corrected before
payments
can resume. The original handset will be returned to Sprint at the end of
the
contract period upon receipt of a statement showing a zero balance.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for writing us back.
>
> I agree with you that there should be no charge for the replacement
> phone under the warranty. However, when you replace the phone under
> warranty the old phone needs to be returned to us. Since you did not
> return the old phone, this is the reason why the credit of $189.99 is
> for a temporary basis. Once we receive the old phone, your account will
> be adjusted with the necessary credit.
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Shana M.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Shana,

I understand your desire to gain possession of the original handset as soon
as possible. The handset is the only physical evidence of Sprint's attempt
to void a valid warranty by declaring the phone had been immersed in water.
But if I return the phone at this time I will have no means to force Sprint
to honor the contract. The $189.99 charge for the replacement phone must
be credited before payments can resume. The original handset will be
returned to Sprint at the end of the contract period upon receipt of a
statement showing a zero balance.

Have a nice day,

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for writing us once again.
>
> We can only apply the permanent credit to the account once we receive the
> old handset back. For further assistance, please contact us by dialing
> *2TALK from your PCS Phone or by dialing 1-888-211-4727 from a

> landline phone. Our specialist will be glad to assist you.
> Thank you for emailing us. Have a great day!
>
> Shana M.
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Shana,

The $189.99 charge for the replacement phone must be credited before
payments can resume. The original handset will be returned to Sprint at
the end of the contract period upon receipt of a statement showing a
zero balance. This is not open to negotiation.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> A representative will be contacting you within 48 hours. Please allow us
> time to research your issue, before we contact you back.
>
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Angel,

It's been nearly a week since you told me a representative will be
contacting me within 48 hours. No representative has contacted me.

As you know, it has been decided that Sprint will issue a credit for the
$189.99 charge for the replacement phone before payments will resume.
Can you explain why that credit has not yet been issued?

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> A representative will be contacting you within 48 hours. Please allow us
> time to research your issue, before we contact you back.
>
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Angel,

It's now been nearly two weeks since you told me a representative will be
contacting me within 48 hours. No representative has contacted me.
Instead, I just received an imminent disconnection notice via US Mail.
It states that my service will be disconnected unless payment of $421.71 is
received by Sprint within ten days. But that amount includes $189.99
for the phone which was replaced under warranty. As you know, it has been
decided that that charge must be credited before any payments can be made.
Sprint has put itself in the curious position of demanding payment while
effectively blocking payment!

Apparently the Sprint billing department has not been made aware of the
requirement to issue a credit for the $189.99 that was improperly charged
for the phone replaced under warranty. Please make them aware of that
requirement. Once that credit has been issued, payments will resume.
That is the ONLY way payments will resume. The original handset will be
returned to Sprint at the end of the contract period upon receipt of a
statement
showing a zero balance. That is the ONLY way the original handset will
be returned.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> To best address your concerns, please contact us by dialing
> 1-888-211-4727 from a landline phone. Our specialists will be glad to
> assist you.
>
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Angel,

I tried calling that number, the person that responded was unfamiliar
with this situation.

But there isn't anything to discuss anyway. All that's necessary is
that Sprint understands that payments cannot be made until the credit is
issued. So if Sprint wants to receive payment it will issue the credit, if
Sprint doesn't care to receive payment it will not issue the credit. It's
all
out of my hands now, there's nothing more I can do to resolve this. If the
credit is not issued no payment will be made and I assume Sprint will
then terminate service.

If Sprint terminates service it will forfeit payment of the entire amount
due as well as the original handset. Please make sure Sprint is aware
of that.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI


>
> Dear Steven,
>
> Thank you for replying back.
>
> I understand you wish to continue corresponding with us regarding this
> issue. Your account has been analyzed and reviewed with a supervisor. We
> have understood and considered all of the facts and issues raised in
> your most recent communication. However, our previous correspondence has
> stated our final position.
>
> We appreciate your valuable time, since no further action for this issue
> is required, we are closing this correspondence .
>
> Thank you for contacting us. Have a great day.
>
> Angel
> E-Care
> Sprint together with Nextel
> "Where our customers come first!"
>


Dear Angel,

I acknowledge your confirmation that Sprint has chosen to terminate service
and to forfeit the balance it shows due on this account and to the original
handset. I think that an odd choice, but I will respect it. I will take my
business to one of Sprint's competitors with a better sense of customer
service. That appears to be all of them. As I stated in my initial message
last April, a full report of Sprint's performance, including the attempt to
void a valid warranty, will be made to print and internet consumer reporting
services. This matter will then be closed.

Have a nice day.

Steven P. McNicoll
De Pere, WI

---

› See More: Warranty on Sprint Sanyo phones

"Scooterflex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sprint's policy has changed as of January 2006. They will no longer repair
> phones unless you pay for their insurance.
>

That would apply only to phones sold after the policy change.

You would have had better luck filing a complaint with the Better Business
Bureau. It can be done online at http://www.bbb.org/

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[snip: lengthy description of problem replacing phones]

I agree. I've had good results from BBB complaints.

--
John Richards

"Bill Marriott" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You would have had better luck filing a complaint with the Better Business
> Bureau. It can be done online at http://www.bbb.org/
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> [snip: lengthy description of problem replacing phones]

At 04 Nov 2006 00:32:13 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> Dear Angel,
>
> I acknowledge your confirmation that Sprint has chosen to terminate
> service
> and to forfeit the balance it shows due on this account and to the
> original
> handset. I think that an odd choice, but I will respect it. I will
> take my
> business to one of Sprint's competitors with a better sense of customer
> service. That appears to be all of them. As I stated in my initial
> message
> last April, a full report of Sprint's performance, including the
> attempt to
> void a valid warranty, will be made to print and internet consumer
> reporting
> services. This matter will then be closed.
>
> Have a nice day.

Sprint was horrible and wrong...

....but so were you.

I wouldn't show your post to your next carrier or they might not want you!

I was on your side up until you refused to send the old handset back.
Regardless of your belief it was the only "evidence" proving Sprint's
conspiracy against you, a handset exchange is just that- a handset
EXCHANGE.

You could've gone back and got a note from the techs who couldn't find
water damage as your "evidence" and sent the phone back.

You paid for one phone. They sent the new one to you with clear
instructions- send back the old one or pay $189. You unilaterally
decided to do neither. Fair is fair- at the end of the day you deserve a
working phone- not a working phone and a defective one as "evidence."
Sprint deserved their dead one back to get credit from Sanyo for the
defective piece. Not in 2007 when it won't do them any good financially.

Sure, Sprint was despicable to you and your post confirmed exactly why
I've never been interested in Sprint as a service provider. But your
persistance paid off and Sprint eventually did the right thing, and then
you threw it back in their face. Sprint doesn't deserve your business,
but if you think you get to unilaterally call the shots without any
consequences, better carriers don't deserve to get stuck with you as a
customer either.

I have to assume frustration got the better of your judgement because you
seemed quite rational for 3/4s of your experience.



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

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Sprint was horrible and wrong...
>
> ...but so were you.
>
> I wouldn't show your post to your next carrier or they might not want you!
>
> I was on your side up until you refused to send the old handset back.
> Regardless of your belief it was the only "evidence" proving Sprint's
> conspiracy against you, a handset exchange is just that- a handset
> EXCHANGE.
>
> You could've gone back and got a note from the techs who couldn't find
> water damage as your "evidence" and sent the phone back.
>
> You paid for one phone. They sent the new one to you with clear
> instructions- send back the old one or pay $189. You unilaterally
> decided to do neither. Fair is fair- at the end of the day you deserve a
> working phone- not a working phone and a defective one as "evidence."
> Sprint deserved their dead one back to get credit from Sanyo for the
> defective piece. Not in 2007 when it won't do them any good financially.
>
> Sure, Sprint was despicable to you and your post confirmed exactly why
> I've never been interested in Sprint as a service provider. But your
> persistance paid off and Sprint eventually did the right thing, and then
> you threw it back in their face. Sprint doesn't deserve your business,
> but if you think you get to unilaterally call the shots without any
> consequences, better carriers don't deserve to get stuck with you as a
> customer either.
>
> I have to assume frustration got the better of your judgement because you
> seemed quite rational for 3/4s of your experience.
>

I was rational for all of the experience. I had exactly the same right to
unilaterally call the shots that Sprint had. Sprint would have gotten their
phone back at the end of the contract period if they had followed my
instructions. They had no reason not to trust me, but I had good reason not
to trust them.

At 04 Nov 2006 03:14:49 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>

> > I have to assume frustration got the better of your judgement because
> > you
> > seemed quite rational for 3/4s of your experience.
> >
>
> I was rational for all of the experience. I had exactly the same right
> to
> unilaterally call the shots that Sprint had. Sprint would have gotten
> their
> phone back at the end of the contract period if they had followed my
> instructions.

Except, as I pointed out, the phone was no good to them at the end of 2007.

They need it during the warranty period in order to seek compensation
from Sanyo, the manufacturer.

> They had no reason not to trust me, but I had good reason not
> to trust them.

If you look at it objectively (which, admittedly is hard, given what
happened to you!) the "villain" in your adventure was the woman who
claimed, and reported, your phone was "immersed in water." Sprint simply
relied on the incorrect report from their agent. Once you straightened
out the "misunderstanding" (I'm being far too generous to her and/or
Sprint here) cooler heads at Sprint prevailed and they tried to
accomodate you- they replaced the phone, credited the no-service
period you were billed, and did essentially everything you asked. Only
after you received and activated the replacement did you make the
unilateral and quite unreasonable demand to keep a defective phone for
over a year until your contract ended.

Why didn't you tell them BEFORE you activated the replacement that you
did not intend to return the defective? Why did you state the
replacement process was "completed" when the new handset was activated?
Replacing something assumed just that- one item is replaced with another.
It seems to me you didn't get a phone replaced, as much as added to your
personal stockpile. Sprint told you what the process was, you activated
the new phone knowing the terms (return defective within 10 days or get
charged $189.)

I don't expect to convince you that you were wrong- you feel harmed
enough that you rationalized that your actions were proper, or at least
reasonable. I suspect, however, if Sprint were to arbitrate this, (suing
is out of the question, given that both parties agree to arbitration as
part of the wireless service contract) they'd win.


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

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.



Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 04 Nov 2006 03:14:49 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> >
>
> > > I have to assume frustration got the better of your judgement because
> > > you
> > > seemed quite rational for 3/4s of your experience.
> > >
> >
> > I was rational for all of the experience. I had exactly the same right
> > to
> > unilaterally call the shots that Sprint had. Sprint would have gotten
> > their
> > phone back at the end of the contract period if they had followed my
> > instructions.
>
> Except, as I pointed out, the phone was no good to them at the end of 2007.
>
> They need it during the warranty period in order to seek compensation
> from Sanyo, the manufacturer.
>
> > They had no reason not to trust me, but I had good reason not
> > to trust them.
>
> If you look at it objectively (which, admittedly is hard, given what
> happened to you!) the "villain" in your adventure was the woman who
> claimed, and reported, your phone was "immersed in water." Sprint simply
> relied on the incorrect report from their agent. Once you straightened
> out the "misunderstanding" (I'm being far too generous to her and/or
> Sprint here) cooler heads at Sprint prevailed and they tried to
> accomodate you- they replaced the phone, credited the no-service
> period you were billed, and did essentially everything you asked. Only
> after you received and activated the replacement did you make the
> unilateral and quite unreasonable demand to keep a defective phone for
> over a year until your contract ended.
>
> Why didn't you tell them BEFORE you activated the replacement that you
> did not intend to return the defective? Why did you state the
> replacement process was "completed" when the new handset was activated?
> Replacing something assumed just that- one item is replaced with another.
> It seems to me you didn't get a phone replaced, as much as added to your
> personal stockpile. Sprint told you what the process was, you activated
> the new phone knowing the terms (return defective within 10 days or get
> charged $189.)
>
> I don't expect to convince you that you were wrong- you feel harmed
> enough that you rationalized that your actions were proper, or at least
> reasonable. I suspect, however, if Sprint were to arbitrate this, (suing
> is out of the question, given that both parties agree to arbitration as
> part of the wireless service contract) they'd win.
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Todd Allcock" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Except, as I pointed out, the phone was no good to them at the end of
> 2007.
>
> They need it during the warranty period in order to seek compensation
> from Sanyo, the manufacturer.
>

They would have had the phone in April 2006 if they had elected to honor the
warranty in the first place.


>
> If you look at it objectively (which, admittedly is hard, given what
> happened to you!) the "villain" in your adventure was the woman who
> claimed, and reported, your phone was "immersed in water." Sprint simply
> relied on the incorrect report from their agent. Once you straightened
> out the "misunderstanding" (I'm being far too generous to her and/or
> Sprint here) cooler heads at Sprint prevailed and they tried to
> accomodate you- they replaced the phone, credited the no-service
> period you were billed, and did essentially everything you asked. Only
> after you received and activated the replacement did you make the
> unilateral and quite unreasonable demand to keep a defective phone for
> over a year until your contract ended.
>

You obviously did not read my message closely. If you had, you'd have known
that in my first message to Sprint I informed them that three Sprint
employees had examined my phone, one decided it had been immersed while the
other two could not find any trace of water damage. Sprint chose to rely on
the incorrect report from their agent with full knowledge that it was
suspect.


>
> Why didn't you tell them BEFORE you activated the replacement that you
> did not intend to return the defective?
>

Because that was not the case. I fully intended to return the phone at the
end of the contract period.


>
> Why did you state the
> replacement process was "completed" when the new handset was activated?
>

Because upon activation of the new handset the non-working handset had been
replaced, completing the replacement process.


>
> Replacing something assumed just that- one item is replaced with another.
>

And it was.


>
> It seems to me you didn't get a phone replaced, as much as added to your
> personal stockpile.
>

I think few would agree with you. Upon activation of the replacement phone
I had a total of three working phones, exactly the number I was supposed to
have.


>
> Sprint told you what the process was, you activated
> the new phone knowing the terms (return defective within 10 days or get
> charged $189.)
>

Sprint was wrong about those terms, I corrected them.


>
> I don't expect to convince you that you were wrong- you feel harmed
> enough that you rationalized that your actions were proper, or at least
> reasonable.
>

My actions were proper and reasonable under the circumstances.


>
> I suspect, however, if Sprint were to arbitrate this, (suing
> is out of the question, given that both parties agree to arbitration as
> part of the wireless service contract) they'd win.
>

Sprint cannot go either route. I tried everything I could to convince them
they should honor the wireless service contract as written, they refused to
do so. They can't ask for arbitration under it now. To prevail in a suit
they'd have to prove the phone had been immersed, and to do that they have
to get their hands on the phone before going to court and actually immerse
it. Do you see now why I had to keep the phone to the end of the contract
period?

"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:



Manufacturer's Warranty

Customer Limited Warranty

SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., (Sprint) offers you a limited warranty that the
enclosed subscriber unit (Product), including accessories in the product
package, will be free from defects in material or workmanship as follows:

SUBSCRIBER UNIT:

A. SPRINT ONE (1) YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY: For a period of one (1) year from
the date of purchase, Sprint will, at its option, either pay the parts and
labor charges to any authorized Sprint PCS Phone service facility to repair
or replace a defective product (with new or rebuilt parts/replacements).
After this one (1) year period, you must pay all parts, shipping and labor
charges.

B. REPAIRS: For a period equal to the remainder of the original limited
warranty period on an original Product or for the 180 days after the date of
repair/replacement, whichever is longer. Sprint will repair or replace (with
new or rebuilt replacement) defective parts or Product used in the repair or
replacement of the original Product under this Limited Warranty.

Proof of purchase in the form of a bill of sale or receipted invoice
warranty repair document which is evidence that the Product is within the
warranty period must be presented to obtain warranty service. This limited
warranty is not transferable to any third party, including but not limited
to any subsequent purchaser or owner of the Products.

Transfer or resale of a Product will automatically terminate warranty
coverage with respect to the Products.

This limited warranty' does not cover and is void with respect to the
following: (i) Products which have been improperly installed, repaired,
maintained or modified (including the antenna); (ii) Products which have
been subjected to misuse (including Products used in conjunction with
hardware electrically or mechanically incompatible or used with accessories
not supplied by Sprint), abuse accident, physical damage, abnormal
operation, improper handling and storage, neglect, exposure to fire, water
or excessive moisture or dampness or extreme changes in climate or
temperature, (iii) Products operated outside published maximum ratings;
(iv) cosmetic damage; (v) Products on which warranty stickers or Product
serial numbers have been removed, altered, or rendered illegible;
(vi) customer instruction; (vii) cost of installation, removal or
reinstallation;
(viii) signal reception problems (unless caused by defect in material and
workmanship); (ix) damage as the result of fire, flood, acts of God or other
acts which are not the fault of Sprint and which the Product is not
specified
to tolerate, including damage caused by mishandling and blown fuses;
(x) consumables (such as fuses); or (xi) any Products which have been
opened, repaired, modified or altered by anyone other than Sprint or a
Sprint authorized service center.

This warranty does not cover customer education, instruction, installation,
set up adjustments, or signal reception problems. This warranty is valid
only in the United States.

USE WITH ACCESSORIES NOT SUPPLIED BY SPRINT OR OTHERWISE NOT EXPRESSLY
AUTHORIZED BY SPRINT MAY BE DANGEROUS.

SPRINT SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY, AND SHALL HAVE NO
OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE TO BUYER ANY OTHER REMEDY, FOR ANY AND
ALL DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, GENERAL, INCIDENTAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOST
SALES, LOSS OF USE OF THE PRODUCT, OR
ANTICIPATED PROFITS ARISING OUT OF USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE
ANY PRODUCT (FOR EXAMPLE, WASTED AIRTIME CHARGES DUE TO
THE MALFUNCTION OF A PRODUCT), DAMAGE DUE TO IMPROPER
OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION TO
IMPROPER VOLTAGE SUPPLY. OR ATTEMPTED REPAIR OF THE
PRODUCT BY ANYONE OTHER THAN A FACILITY AUTHORIZED BY SPRINT.
THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER PRODUCTS SOLD AS IS OR WITH
ALL FAULTS, OR CONSUMABLES, (SUCH AS FUSES). THIS WARRANTY
DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE MALFUNCTION RESULTS FROM USE OF
THE PRODUCT IN CONJIINCTION WITH ACCESSORIES, PRODUCTS OR ANCILLARY OR
PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT NOT SUPPLIED BY OR
EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED FOR USE BY SPRINT, AND WHERE IT IS
DETERMINED BY SPRINT THAT THERE IS NO FAULT WITH THE PRODUCT
ITSELF.

REPAIR OR REPIACEMENT, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE WARRANTY, IS
YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY. TO THE
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, SPRINT
MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR
AGAINST INFRINGEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE
LIMITED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE ON THIS PRODUCT IS LIMITED IN DURATION TO
THE DURATION OF THIS WARRANTY.

Some States do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or
consequential damages, or allow limitations on how long an implied warranty
lasts, so the above limitations or exclusions may not apply to you.

This limited warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may have
other rights which vary from State to State.

For other Warranty Service Information, please call Sprint Customer Service
at 1-888-211-4727.




Copyright(c) 2005 ACCESS Systems America Inc. ACCESS, NetFront are
registered trademarks or trademarks owned by ACCESS Co., Ltd. in Japan
and selected countries worldwide. NetFront is a registered trademark of
NetFront Communications, Inc. in the United States and is used under a
license.
Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent
JPEG Group.

Copyright (c) 2005 InnoPath Software. All rights reserved.

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.

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.
Basically you were being non-cooperative at that point.

FWIW, this is why I feel the $6 TEP package is worthwhile. I figure that if
my phone breaks it's going to be my fault. It's a borderline case when the
phone is worth less than $150, I suppose, but in the case of my $600 Treo
700p it's nice to know that it can take a dunk or get really scratched up
and I won't have a hassle when getting a replacement.

Just a reality check.

"Steven P. McNicoll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> My actions were proper and reasonable under the circumstances.
[...]
> Do you see now why I had to keep the phone to the end of the contract
> period?

"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.

Well, you're obviously not to be convinced otherwise. 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.

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

"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.
>

At 04 Nov 2006 14:12:00 +0000 Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> You obviously did not read my message closely. If you had, you'd have
known
> that in my first message to Sprint I informed them that three Sprint
> employees had examined my phone, one decided it had been immersed while
the
> other two could not find any trace of water damage. Sprint chose to
rely on
> the incorrect report from their agent with full knowledge that it was
> suspect.

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.)

> > Why didn't you tell them BEFORE you activated the replacement that you
> > did not intend to return the defective?
> >
>
> Because that was not the case. I fully intended to return the phone at
the
> end of the contract period.
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.
>
> >
> > Why did you state the
> > replacement process was "completed" when the new handset was
activated?
> >
>
> Because upon activation of the new handset the non-working handset had
been
> replaced, completing the replacement process.
>
There's coy again- ever exchange a defective product in a retail store?
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!"

> > Replacing something assumed just that- one item is replaced with
another.
> >
>
> And it was.
>
>
> >
> > It seems to me you didn't get a phone replaced, as much as added to
your
> > personal stockpile.
> >
>
> I think few would agree with you. Upon activation of the replacement
phone
> I had a total of three working phones, exactly the number I was
supposed to
> have.

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.

> > Sprint told you what the process was, you activated
> > the new phone knowing the terms (return defective within 10 days or
get
> > charged $189.)
> >
>
> Sprint was wrong about those terms, I corrected them.

Apparently there's a fine line between coy and smartass! ;-)

Sprint apparently corrected you, when they levied the $189 charge on your
bill.

> > I suspect, however, if Sprint were to arbitrate this, (suing
> > is out of the question, given that both parties agree to arbitration
as
> > part of the wireless service contract) they'd win.
> >
>
> Sprint cannot go either route. I tried everything I could to convince
them
> they should honor the wireless service contract as written, they
refused to
> do so.

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.

> They can't ask for arbitration under it now. To prevail in a suit
> they'd have to prove the phone had been immersed, and to do that they
have
> to get their hands on the phone before going to court and actually
immerse
> 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.

> Do you see now why I had to keep the phone to the end of the contract
> period?

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...


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

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]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> 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:
>
>
>
> Manufacturer's Warranty
>
> Customer Limited Warranty
>
> SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P., (Sprint) offers you a limited warranty that the
> enclosed subscriber unit (Product), including accessories in the product
> package, will be free from defects in material or workmanship as follows:
>
> SUBSCRIBER UNIT:
>
> A. SPRINT ONE (1) YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY: For a period of one (1) year from
> the date of purchase, Sprint will, at its option, either pay the parts and
> labor charges to any authorized Sprint PCS Phone service facility to repair
> or replace a defective product (with new or rebuilt parts/replacements).
> After this one (1) year period, you must pay all parts, shipping and labor
> charges.
>
> B. REPAIRS: For a period equal to the remainder of the original limited
> warranty period on an original Product or for the 180 days after the date of
> repair/replacement, whichever is longer. Sprint will repair or replace (with
> new or rebuilt replacement) defective parts or Product used in the repair or
> replacement of the original Product under this Limited Warranty.
>
> Proof of purchase in the form of a bill of sale or receipted invoice
> warranty repair document which is evidence that the Product is within the
> warranty period must be presented to obtain warranty service. This limited
> warranty is not transferable to any third party, including but not limited
> to any subsequent purchaser or owner of the Products.
>
> Transfer or resale of a Product will automatically terminate warranty
> coverage with respect to the Products.
>
> This limited warranty' does not cover and is void with respect to the
> following: (i) Products which have been improperly installed, repaired,
> maintained or modified (including the antenna); (ii) Products which have
> been subjected to misuse (including Products used in conjunction with
> hardware electrically or mechanically incompatible or used with accessories
> not supplied by Sprint), abuse accident, physical damage, abnormal
> operation, improper handling and storage, neglect, exposure to fire, water
> or excessive moisture or dampness or extreme changes in climate or
> temperature, (iii) Products operated outside published maximum ratings;
> (iv) cosmetic damage; (v) Products on which warranty stickers or Product
> serial numbers have been removed, altered, or rendered illegible;
> (vi) customer instruction; (vii) cost of installation, removal or
> reinstallation;
> (viii) signal reception problems (unless caused by defect in material and
> workmanship); (ix) damage as the result of fire, flood, acts of God or other
> acts which are not the fault of Sprint and which the Product is not
> specified
> to tolerate, including damage caused by mishandling and blown fuses;
> (x) consumables (such as fuses); or (xi) any Products which have been
> opened, repaired, modified or altered by anyone other than Sprint or a
> Sprint authorized service center.
>
> This warranty does not cover customer education, instruction, installation,
> set up adjustments, or signal reception problems. This warranty is valid
> only in the United States.
>
> USE WITH ACCESSORIES NOT SUPPLIED BY SPRINT OR OTHERWISE NOT EXPRESSLY
> AUTHORIZED BY SPRINT MAY BE DANGEROUS.
>
> SPRINT SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY, AND SHALL HAVE NO
> OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE TO BUYER ANY OTHER REMEDY, FOR ANY AND
> ALL DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, GENERAL, INCIDENTAL OR
> CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF PROFITS, LOST
> SALES, LOSS OF USE OF THE PRODUCT, OR
> ANTICIPATED PROFITS ARISING OUT OF USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE
> ANY PRODUCT (FOR EXAMPLE, WASTED AIRTIME CHARGES DUE TO
> THE MALFUNCTION OF A PRODUCT), DAMAGE DUE TO IMPROPER
> OPERATION OR MAINTENANCE, INSTALLATION, CONNECTION TO
> IMPROPER VOLTAGE SUPPLY. OR ATTEMPTED REPAIR OF THE
> PRODUCT BY ANYONE OTHER THAN A FACILITY AUTHORIZED BY SPRINT.
> THIS WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER PRODUCTS SOLD AS IS OR WITH
> ALL FAULTS, OR CONSUMABLES, (SUCH AS FUSES). THIS WARRANTY
> DOES NOT APPLY WHEN THE MALFUNCTION RESULTS FROM USE OF
> THE PRODUCT IN CONJIINCTION WITH ACCESSORIES, PRODUCTS OR ANCILLARY OR
> PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT NOT SUPPLIED BY OR
> EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED FOR USE BY SPRINT, AND WHERE IT IS
> DETERMINED BY SPRINT THAT THERE IS NO FAULT WITH THE PRODUCT
> ITSELF.
>
> REPAIR OR REPIACEMENT, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE WARRANTY, IS
> YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR BREACH OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY. TO THE
> EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, SPRINT
> MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
> WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCTS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR
> AGAINST INFRINGEMENT WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE
> LIMITED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
> PARTICULAR PURPOSE ON THIS PRODUCT IS LIMITED IN DURATION TO
> THE DURATION OF THIS WARRANTY.
>
> Some States do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or
> consequential damages, or allow limitations on how long an implied warranty
> lasts, so the above limitations or exclusions may not apply to you.
>
> This limited warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may have
> other rights which vary from State to State.
>
> For other Warranty Service Information, please call Sprint Customer Service
> at 1-888-211-4727.
>
>
>
>
> Copyright(c) 2005 ACCESS Systems America Inc. ACCESS, NetFront are
> registered trademarks or trademarks owned by ACCESS Co., Ltd. in Japan
> and selected countries worldwide. NetFront is a registered trademark of
> NetFront Communications, Inc. in the United States and is used under a
> license.
> Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent
> JPEG Group.
>
> Copyright (c) 2005 InnoPath Software. All rights reserved.