Sprint's next lawsuit

I bought an expensive PDA to use exclusively on Sprint's Vision network.

Since my purchase, half of the time when I try to log onto Vision, all I get is the message "Error:
The network is busy, unavailable or data is not enabled (0x1102)".

I am in a 5 bar area in the middle of one of the nation's largest cities. Voice works fine.

Vision reliability is unacceptable. If I don't receive a reasonable level of network access within
the next 30 days, I will demand a full refund of the PDA price, a full refund of all Vision
payments made to date, and the release from my long-term contract.

If I do not receive this, I will file a lawsuit in Civil Court. Given that many people are having
trouble accessing Vision, I may decide to become the lead plaintiff in a class action suit.

Federal law requires that a company must be able to reasonably satisfy all advertising claims
BEFORE the claims are made.

I've stuck with and paid for this for a long time with the promise that the "network is being
upgraded". It isn't being upgraded, but my checks are being cashed. Enough is enough.

Sprint needs to get it together, or stop marketing the service.

Whether you agree or disagree with my decision, I have made it - and this will happen unless the
"network upgrade" happens very quickly.

---

› See More: Sprint's next lawsuit

Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> Vision reliability is unacceptable. If I don't receive a reasonable level of network access within
> the next 30 days, I will demand a full refund of the PDA price, a full refund of all Vision
> payments made to date, and the release from my long-term contract.
>
> If I do not receive this, I will file a lawsuit in Civil Court. Given that many people are having
> trouble accessing Vision, I may decide to become the lead plaintiff in a class action suit.
>
> Federal law requires that a company must be able to reasonably satisfy all advertising claims
> BEFORE the claims are made.


Good luck since its written in the contact that you signed that you have
14 days to cancel without penalty, not 30.
It also states on the recipt that the return policy is 14 days (or 30
days for some other stores such as Radio Shack).



[posted via phonescoop.com - free web access to the alt.cellular groups]

>Yeah, whatever!

That's exactly what you said when people threatened to sue over the WLNP fee.

>Good luck since its written in the contact that you signed that you have
>14 days to cancel without penalty, not 30.
>It also states on the recipt that the return policy is 14 days (or 30
>days for some other stores such as Radio Shack).

Worked fine for first 14 days. Has gone downhill since.

Regardless of what it may or may not say in the fine print, they have to continue to compelete your
calls and provide every other service that you are paying for until one of you terminates your
business relationship. By law, they have to give you what is contained in the "primary advertising
language".

Do you really think Sprint can just cut off your phone service tomorrow and say "hey, it worked for
the first 14 days - that's all our contract requires"? Is that really what you think?

Good gracious what are our public schools producing these days?

"Nomen Nescio" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Good gracious what are our public schools producing these days?
>

A whole new conundrum. It seems that we are receiving less bang for the
buck than anytime in our history.

Tom Veldhouse

The reason why WNLP worked for 30 days was because the terms of the
Advantage Agreement say 30 days. That's not a matter of returning
because of a bad product or service. It's because they made a change
to our bills and a clause let's us cancel when they do. What you're
talking about is an entirely different matter. Don't get me wrong, I
hope you win and I wish you luck. I just don't think it will be easy.

--
Posted at SprintUsers.com - Your place for everything Sprint PCS
Free wireless access @ www.SprintUsers.com/wap

the*****[email protected] (The *****jammer) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Nomen Nescio <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > Federal law requires that a company must be able to reasonably satisfy all advertising claims
> > BEFORE the claims are made.
> Good luck since its written in the contact that you signed that you have
> 14 days to cancel without penalty, not 30.
> It also states on the recipt that the return policy is 14 days (or 30
> days for some other stores such as Radio Shack).

It's also written in to the contract that you'll be getting service.
You know, telephone service? Vision service? Nomen wasn't referring to
his right to cancel the service he just got in 30 days instead of 14;
he was referring to his right to have the service he paid for.