Develop Bugs

Completely annoyed with HTC warranty

I sent in my phone under warranty because it won't boot or even turn on. It was covered under warranty but because I have a I had a scratch on my screen they would not repair it unless the scratch was fixed. This was not covered under warranty. So in order to get my phone back I had to pay £120 to fix something I didn't want to get fixed in order for them to fix the original fault.
Just if your wondering my phone just died suddenly, I had the sat nav turned on, looked up and the phone was dead. Couldn't turn it on, wouldn't even charge . I was gutted to say the least. And now I have to pay £120 to get it fixed I am absolutely sickened. I won't be buying another HTC after this.
Anyone have any experiences with HTC returns?
Anyone know who I could complain to, because I feel abit hard done by.

That sounds absolutely unacceptable. There's no way they can force you to have a repair you don't want or need.
Make sure to speak to as many people as possible, taking their names each time so you know this is not one customer service agent getting their wires crossed. Try to speak to someone as high up as possible asking each time to be put through to whoever supervises the one you're talking to.
Sounds borderline illegal!

It's like being forced to pay for life support system when you are nearly dead from an incurable illness, and not having the option to terminate your own life. Maybe you should ask them what they would do in the above scenario.

I asked them a few times that I was ok with the scratch but If I didn't get the scratch repaired they wouldn't fix the phone at all.
I would have held out a bit longer on paying but I'm heading off on holiday soon and I want my phone back before then.
Not sure what I can do now though

bacchus_ben said:
I asked them a few times that I was ok with the scratch but If I didn't get the scratch repaired they wouldn't fix the phone at all.
I would have held out a bit longer on paying but I'm heading off on holiday soon and I want my phone back before then.
Not sure what I can do now though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very strange
but i guess it could be part of some type of quality control
i.e send in a faulty phone they have to fix everything
I know when i had a problem with my HP laptop It was sent in due to a problem with the motherboard but they ended up replacing the mobo, dvd rom and some other stuff.
I.e for them to fix the device they then need to do extra testing - but if the screen is broke or scratched it may mean testing would fail.... (just my take on it)
eeither way u shouldnt be forced into paying for a repair though - check terms again and then speak to trading standards u may have a claim u could make against them.

bacchus_ben said:
I asked them a few times that I was ok with the scratch but If I didn't get the scratch repaired they wouldn't fix the phone at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then this is obviously a policy. It should also be one YOU are fully aware of. Ask them to point you to the passage in the warranty documentation you received in the box where this policy is spelled out. If they can't tell them you'll be contacting trading standards. I'd buy myself a cheap £10 pay as you go mobile and use that for now and don't pay them off. You;d be better off not using your data on holiday anyway. Took my phone with me to Paris. Checked email once and used Maps to find my way once and it cost me a bomb

Think they are out of order they cant force u to fix ur screen unless it was completely trashed speak to trading standards asap
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

Aitese said:
Then this is obviously a policy. It should also be one YOU are fully aware of. Ask them to point you to the passage in the warranty documentation you received in the box where this policy is spelled out. If they can't tell them you'll be contacting trading standards. I'd buy myself a cheap £10 pay as you go mobile and use that for now and don't pay them off. You;d be better off not using your data on holiday anyway. Took my phone with me to Paris. Checked email once and used Maps to find my way once and it cost me a bomb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got navigon, co pilot and spotify all three don't need data. So I really want it for my road trip in europe. Thats why I paid but I know it does not leave me in a good bargaining position.
So I was thinking of waiting until I have my phone back before I start threatening HTC with trading standards.
What else could I do?

Try to speak to someone higher up in HTC customer service.
Sounds like extortion to me.

You mention Trading Standards, so I'm guessing you're in the UK.
First, things first, if you didn't buy direct from HTC (Can you even do tihs?) then you MUST deal with the vendor and they MUST (Absolutely, definitely, 100%) sort it out. You purchased it from someone, and the manufacturer is absolutely immaterial.
If you've paid already, you might be a bit screwed, because you probably shouldn't have dealt with HTC directly. If that's the case, then yeah, speak to Trading Standards next. Know your rights, and kick off. E-mail the CEO (Trust me, this helps get things moving) and threaten to take them to small claims. More to the point, mean it - give them time scales to respond and timescales to deal with you. Then, pay your £30 and have your day in court.
I can almost guarantee they won't bother with the hassle over £120 (Small to them, big to us) and you'll get "We'll pay, but we don't accept fault" type letter and a cheque.
Play the game! Companies try to screw us at every step of the way and they need to be told. The law is almost certainly on your side.

hermand said:
You mention Trading Standards, so I'm guessing you're in the UK.
First, things first, if you didn't buy direct from HTC (Can you even do tihs?) then you MUST deal with the vendor and they MUST (Absolutely, definitely, 100%) sort it out. You purchased it from someone, and the manufacturer is absolutely immaterial.
If you've paid already, you might be a bit screwed, because you probably shouldn't have dealt with HTC directly. If that's the case, then yeah, speak to Trading Standards next. Know your rights, and kick off. E-mail the CEO (Trust me, this helps get things moving) and threaten to take them to small claims. More to the point, mean it - give them time scales to respond and timescales to deal with you. Then, pay your £30 and have your day in court.
I can almost guarantee they won't bother with the hassle over £120 (Small to them, big to us) and you'll get "We'll pay, but we don't accept fault" type letter and a cheque.
Play the game! Companies try to screw us at every step of the way and they need to be told. The law is almost certainly on your side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok I'm based in Ireland but I bought the phone from Clove.
I contacted them first but they said it would be quicker to deal with HTC directly as all they do is send it to them anyway. Either way I would have to send my phone to the UK. I've done returns with Sandisk and Lenovo before and had no issues.

I bet the reason they wanted you to get the screen repaired is because they will then send you a re-conditioned phone. Check those numbers!
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

Take HTC to court?

Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had tried taking HTC to court (I'm thinking small claims court in UK) for not giving those of us who purchased our handsets outright, full access to modify the bootloader etc (ie, S-OFF)?
I'm feeling some serious righteous indignation right now and am considering it.
Thought I'd ask if anyone from here has done it, or knows anyone who has, before I look too much into it.

Simple answer, No?
It's their product, they don't have to let you modify everything.

I doubt you'd have a cause of action for not being able to tamper with your phone.
Plus, you're obviously not aware how much it costs for such litigation. Even if you did have a potential cause of action, if you lost not only would you have to pay all of your own costs but may even have to pay some of the opponent's.
In any case, as much as I think S-OFF is awesome (and I'm continuously checking this forum to see when its available) I can understand why HTC would have shipped S-ON. Every time someone mucks with the bootloader and bricks, HTC will have to deal with fraudulent warranty returns otherwise...

Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..

Nit3m4re said:
Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.

anoniemouse said:
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A product is sold as it's sold. Unless they specifically advertise it being able to do something and it doesn't you have absolutely no case. Bringing a lawsuit against HTC for not making it so easy to tamper (although it's not like you can't) is like bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft for not making it easy to flash firmware onto the Xbox 360. They never said you'd be able to, even if you can — any case would be thrown out and you'd lose a lot of money. Although you're welcome to try.

TheHEFTA said:
Simple answer, No?
It's their product, they don't have to let you modify everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Their product, which they sold to me. Why should they have any say whatsoever on what I do with it??
ganny said:
I doubt you'd have a cause of action for not being able to tamper with your phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not, I own it outright?
ganny said:
Plus, you're obviously not aware how much it costs for such litigation. Even if you did have a potential cause of action, if you lost not only would you have to pay all of your own costs but may even have to pay some of the opponent's.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The small-claims court in the UK is for exactly that, small claims. In Scotland/Ireland the max compensation is £3k and England/Wales if £5k. The whole point of it is for smaller cases and that it doesn't cost a lot to file a case.
ganny said:
In any case, as much as I think S-OFF is awesome (and I'm continuously checking this forum to see when its available) I can understand why HTC would have shipped S-ON. Every time someone mucks with the bootloader and bricks, HTC will have to deal with fraudulent warranty returns otherwise...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nit3m4re said:
Samsung don't seem to bothered by it though..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, its only HTC that make it so bloody difficult to modify your phone the way you want. Why would they be faced with a bigger problem than Samsung etc?
anoniemouse said:
My thoughts exactly, also the idea of a smartphone is like a miniature computer.
A fair number of us regularly install operating systems on those with no bother, why should it be any different on a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly! If I bought a PC and I wasn't allowed to change or even modify the OS, I'd be pissed.
Ryan J Williams said:
A product is sold as it's sold. Unless they specifically advertise it being able to do something and it doesn't you have absolutely no case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bullcrap. See my analogy below...
Ryan J Williams said:
Bringing a lawsuit against HTC for not making it so easy to tamper (although it's not like you can't) is like bringing a lawsuit against Microsoft for not making it easy to flash firmware onto the Xbox 360. They never said you'd be able to, even if you can.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, but the legality of MS preventing the modification of your own xbox is highly questionable at best...
In this thread, I see a lot of negativity, do any of you actually want S-OFF on your phones?
We're not going to get it unless we ask and there's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have it on phones we own.
Here's an analogy I was thinking of.
Say you buy a house and once you've paid and moevd in etc you realise the garage and the basement are locked.
You contact the company that built and sold you the house and they say that's right, that's how its meant to be.
You speak to your neighbours and they're in the same boat and none of you are happy about it.
So you all band together and complain to the company and they relent and say "OK, we'll unlock everything".
You feel vindicated and not long after you get a key in the post that opens the garage but not the basement.
Are you happy?
Of course not.
You want full access to the house you bought, and rightly so.
HTC know they've no right to lock you out of your own phone.
That's why they relented and gave us HTC Unlock but it's nigh on pointless without S-OFF.
And since they force you to accept you're voiding your warranty by unlocking, the comment about increased warranty returns is unlikely.
So, my thoughts are, if I, or anyone else files a claim in the small claims court for nothing more than the value of their phone, it will send HTC a strong message.
If that claim is successful, it sends them an even stronger message and opens the door for others to follow suit after setting the precedent.
I know its unlikely to be plain sailing but its not going to happen unless we try...

airchie said:
Here's an analogy I was thinking of.
Say you buy a house and once you've paid and moevd in etc you realise the garage and the basement are locked.
You contact the company that built and sold you the house and they say that's right, that's how its meant to be.
You speak to your neighbours and they're in the same boat and none of you are happy about it.
So you all band together and complain to the company and they relent and say "OK, we'll unlock everything".
You feel vindicated and not long after you get a key in the post that opens the garage but not the basement.
Are you happy?
Of course not.
You want full access to the house you bought, and rightly so.
HTC know they've no right to lock you out of your own phone.
That's why they relented and gave us HTC Unlock but it's nigh on pointless without S-OFF.
And since they force you to accept you're voiding your warranty by unlocking, the comment about increased warranty returns is unlikely.
So, my thoughts are, if I, or anyone else files a claim in the small claims court for nothing more than the value of their phone, it will send HTC a strong message.
If that claim is successful, it sends them an even stronger message and opens the door for others to follow suit after setting the precedent.
I know its unlikely to be plain sailing but its not going to happen unless we try...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well said & pointed out i agree with you

People took apple to court over jailbreaking, they claimed it was illegal as if was modifying it to run out of toc (should check reason why I believe that's right) but judge ruled against apple making jailbreaking legal in the US.
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app

treebill said:
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what you mean, can you clarify that?
My phone isn't branded (other than the HTC logo) and not on contract and I use a PAYG SIM.
The phone is outright mine and I'm not sure how giving me S-OFF would lose anyone money?

treebill said:
People took apple to court over jailbreaking, they claimed it was illegal as if was modifying it to run out of toc (should check reason why I believe that's right) but judge ruled against apple making jailbreaking legal in the US.
However HTC have got to keep devices as s-on due to contracts, debranding it would lose carriers money.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough for branded phones, but unbranded ones there is no excuse for HTC not to make them s-off

Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument. HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app

AUXRVIII said:
Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument. HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't implying that its the same more that people have taken a company as big as apple and won.
Sent from my HTC One X using XDA Premium HD app

airchie said:
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone had tried taking HTC to court (I'm thinking small claims court in UK) for not giving those of us who purchased our handsets outright, full access to modify the bootloader etc (ie, S-OFF)?
I'm feeling some serious righteous indignation right now and am considering it.
Thought I'd ask if anyone from here has done it, or knows anyone who has, before I look too much into it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it. "S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide. In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.

I don't see the point of taking HTC to court. The comparison of Apple and HTC doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't want you to jailbreak period, while HTC is more open. To me, HTC s-on for a reason, if the users know they're doing, and gets s-off then good for them. Not like HTC will call you or send you a note that you'll get sued for getting s-off on your device. Just wait patiently for xmoo and Football to find the way to s-off, they are making good progress anyways.
BarryH_GEG said:
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it. "S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide. In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I completely agree with you.

AUXRVIII said:
Jailbreaking is done on top of the stock operating system, not replacing it, so it's not a comparable argument.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a large corporation trying to exert control over a device they've sold and have no legal right to try to control.
AUXRVIII said:
HTC have the right to not allow mods to the system because they provide a warranty on the device when it's sold. No they won't sift through users whose warranty has expired, resources would be better used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If that's the case, why do they make you invalidate your warranty to use HTC Unlock? And they can clearly see if a phone's been unlocked as we can't re-lock them. And it only takes common sense to see a manufacturing defect isn't caused by modifying software. There is nothing that justifies the way HTC are acting over this.
BarryH_GEG said:
The only way you could go after HTC is if they documented a feature as being available and then didn't provide it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How so?
BarryH_GEG said:
"S-Off" isn't a feature, it's part of the phones infrastructure as HTC ships it. Nothing is compromised in the use of the phone as it's shipped whether it's S-off or S-on so you're not being deprived of anything HTC intended to provide.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Something is compromised, my ability to modify my phone in the way I want to.
BarryH_GEG said:
In others words, based on the way HTC describes the phone, you've gotten what you paid for so there's no "harm" to justify a lawsuit. I'm not defending HTC's choice, but it's their choice to make. The simple solution is to not buy their phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So by what you say there, you think HTC has a right to prevent me doing what I like to the phone I own? To me, that's like saying Ford has the right to stop me changing the wheels on my car.
gwuhua1984 said:
I don't see the point of taking HTC to court. The comparison of Apple and HTC doesn't make sense. Apple doesn't want you to jailbreak period, while HTC is more open. To me, HTC s-on for a reason, if the users know they're doing, and gets s-off then good for them. Not like HTC will call you or send you a note that you'll get sued for getting s-off on your device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The comparison of Apple and HTC is very valid. They're both trying to exert control over hardware they've sold when they have no right to do so. A fact proven by the Apple case.
gwuhua1984 said:
Just wait patiently for xmoo and Football to find the way to s-off, they are making good progress anyways.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is, we shouldn't have to wait for some enterprising users to break bast HTC's deliberate locking down of our phones. Especially if they provide the unlock option.
All I'm seeing in this thread is people saying things like "I'm not defending HTC but..." or "Why bother fighting for your rights..." etc.
Well, I think we should fight for what we want instead of rolling over and taking it.
The reason HTC, Apple et al all do these things is because they get away with them through apathy like has been shown in this thread, it makes me sad.

A stance has to be taken by a manufacturer of a product regardless of what it is, this sort of thing is not only restricted to mobile devices. If a company like HTC sets it conditions of use under warranty and consumers challenge them, then the company cops negative publicity regardless of the result, so its alway a no win situation. If you feel HTC are wrong in what they are doing then get a job there and change it or start up your own company and see if you want to risk your intellectual property.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app

airchie said:
All I'm seeing in this thread is people saying things like "I'm not defending HTC but..." or "Why bother fighting for your rights..." etc.
Well, I think we should fight for what we want instead of rolling over and taking it.
The reason HTC, Apple et al all do these things is because they get away with them through apathy like has been shown in this thread, it makes me sad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think any of us are thrilled with the absence of S-OFF. The thread is about whether or not it's worth taking HTC to court over it, and my answer to that is 'no'. I don't have the money, I don't have the time, and I probably won't stand a chance because as has been pointed out repeatedly now a company is only obligated to provide the features they specified it'd include.
I often buy expensive sound equipment. Sometimes I like to replace parts with custom hardware, but with some equipment this isn't possible due to proprietary parts being used, or things not being feasibly removable. Could I take the manufacturer's to court over this? Well, yes. Would I win? Doubtful. They've provided me exactly what they advertised, the fact I can't do extra tinkering with it isn't their problem. And if I want to do it badly enough I'll probably figure it out (and void my warranty in the process so they don't have to deal with my screw-up).
As you feel so strongly about it, why don't you take the stand and go get a lawsuit rolling? I'm sure you'll get people to sign any petitions or whatever. Unfortunately I doubt many of us have the financial resources to commit to it too. :good:

LOL
For every response suggesting that OP cannot/ should not sue HTC, he has simply come up w an argument rebutting it. I'd like to see he goes ahead and does it and gets any result out of it. Is the outcome desirable for you all? Perhaps yes. But is there a practical mechanism to achieve that goal via litigation? I'd say not. But if OP doesnt trust the opinions offered, why bother posting something on here at all? Overall if you're serious about courts actions you should be talking to a lawyer not asking people's opinions on the internet.

I think youd have more success sueing them for charging for build defect repairs just because the phone is unlocked.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium

Small Claims Court Over Rooted Phone SOLD

Hi i sold a HOX in the UK for some reason his sim card wouldn't work in it but he was happy to buy it and take it away
My Ad
Hi up for sale is my HTC one X 32GB in black and is in good condition
It is unlocked to any network
Comes with Charger, Usb Cable and is Boxed
Thxs
Ive just received a email saying he would like a refund because he cannot get the sim working and that it is rooted
So i emailed him back saying i had bought another phone which i have and wouldn't be able to offer a refund
Then i recieved a email back saying
But you've advertised the phone falsely, you never mentioned in your ad that it it wasn't running on its original android software. If you're refusing to give me a refund I'll have no other choice but to get in contact with gumtree or failing that CAB/Small claims court. Had you been honest in the original advertisement we wouldnt be having this problem
Did i have to state in the ad that it was rooted?
Any advice would be great
Thxs

bornnslippy said:
Hi i sold a HOX in the UK for some reason his sim card wouldn't work in it but he was happy to buy it and take it away
My Ad
Hi up for sale is my HTC one X 32GB in black and is in good condition
It is unlocked to any network
Comes with Charger, Usb Cable and is Boxed
Thxs
Ive just received a email saying he would like a refund because he cannot get the sim working and that it is rooted
So i emailed him back saying i had bought another phone which i have and wouldn't be able to offer a refund
Then i recieved a email back saying
But you've advertised the phone falsely, you never mentioned in your ad that it it wasn't running on its original android software. If you're refusing to give me a refund I'll have no other choice but to get in contact with gumtree or failing that CAB/Small claims court. Had you been honest in the original advertisement we wouldnt be having this problem
Did i have to state in the ad that it was rooted?
Any advice would be great
Thxs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If i was going to sell my phone on Ebay i'd put it on stock rom, but if i was going to keep current custom rom i would specify that it is rooted, but being rooted shouldn't effect different carriers if it's already network unlocked

i would ask him why it's so bad that it is rooted...or what the problem of a rooted system is...if he only want a refund because of the rooted rom you can help him to get back to completely stock...i still don't get why many ppl are so strange and mad if it comes to rooting -.-

Well the way i see it he has a point, i don't think it's all about running the stock rom or not but about what's written in the add. And my opinion is that you should have stated in the add that it was custom rommed/rooted so he could act on it. Not saying it's a false deal.....rather incomplete and at that point he is actually right. It's all a bit black & white, but to answer your question : if he plays this up he has a point and probably win. It's about expectations, he thinks he is buying a stock hox but in the end it is not and that's not written anywhere. I would offer him to help him to get it back to stock and see if he takes up on that offer ?
Cheers.

Mr Hofs said:
Well the way i see it he has a point, i don't think it's all about running the stock rom or not but about what's written in the add. And my opinion is that you should have stated in the add that it was custom rommed/rooted so he could act on it. Not saying it's a false deal.....rather incomplete and at that point he is actually right. It's all a bit black & white, but to answer your question : if he plays this up he has a point and probably win. It's about expectations, he thinks he is buying a stock hox but in the end it is not and that's not written anywhere. I would offer him to help him to get it back to stock and see if he takes up on that offer ?
Cheers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1

Ok thxs for your replies I will offer to put it back to factory for him and see what he says
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

bornnslippy said:
Ok thxs for your replies I will offer to put it back to factory for him and see what he says
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are a private seller and have sold the device to someone who came and looked at it before paying then he has very little recourse.
I recommend that you have a standard receipt which says "sold as seen" and get the buyer to sign it.

t-bon3 said:
If you are a private seller and have sold the device to someone who came and looked at it before paying then he has very little recourse.
I recommend that you have a standard receipt which says "sold as seen" and get the buyer to sign it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What i make of the OP the buyer didn't see it and only saw the add, in that case the buyer is stronger.

The buyer collected the phone tested it out etc and was happy with it
He was also OK with the fact that his sim card didn't seem to get a signal
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

bornnslippy said:
The buyer collected the phone tested it out etc and was happy with it
He was also OK with the fact that his sim card didn't seem to get a signal
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lets say i buy a car from you. I see that the left headlight is damaged. We agree ok i saw everything else good? Good. I drive away and the rear axel falls of. So it is my fault that i didnt saw what you didnt tell me? Even if he said it is ok that is rooted your ad did not say it. Imagine who will win... Or did you say that it does not have a warranty anymore? You didnt also... I would be pissed at you really
I noted your username to be sure to never buy anything from you...
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk

and313 said:
I noted your username to be sure to never buy anything from you...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
:laugh: I'm certain he'll be deeply disturbed and upset over your remark.
Build a bridge and get over it, the phone was returned to stock rom,it's a used phone and most used phones don't have or come with any implied warranty.

maxilick said:
:laugh: I'm certain he'll be deeply disturbed and upset over your remark.
Build a bridge and get over it, the phone was returned to stock rom,it's a used phone and most used phones don't have or come with any implied warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Every phone has a 2 year warranty. If you do something to void the warranty you need to tell the buyer. Im sure the buyer wanted to send it back for repairs
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk

Relax peeps, he is here for help and obvious learned about this situation. No need to bash his mistake.

Just my 2 cents, backed up with a little consumer law.
If this was an online only transaction where the item description is the only was of determining an items state, then yes you have every right to complain and request a refund. And in all likelihood if you were take to a small claims court they would probably reach that conclusion.
But, as the buyer collected from you, the onus on inspecting the item pre-sale is his. If you deliberately withheld information, he could argue that. But, if you sold the item and demonstrated it in good faith the buyer would have no recourse. "Sold as Seen" would apply here, as the buyer physically saw it and could inspect it pre-sale.
Unlocking via HTC-Dev does not void the warranty. Nor does rooting. The warranty applies to the hardware only. (See section 4)
And @and313 yes, here in the UK if you buy a car from a private individual, not a garage or main dealer, and something falls off / breaks after you've bought it, its your responsibility.
"Private sales
When you buy a used vehicle from a private individual, you don't have the same rights as you do when buying from a trader. The legal principle of caveat emptor, or 'buyer beware' operates. You have no right to expect that the vehicle is of satisfactory quality or fit for its purpose, but there is a requirement that it should be 'as described'. For example, if an advertisement says 'low mileage, one previous owner', it must be correct. You should check the vehicle thoroughly before you buy it."
- Trading Standards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@bornnslippy - IMO you have nothing to worry about, like you're doing, I would assist the buyer like any decent person would. But the threat of being taken to a small claims court is just that, a threat.

Look, very nice and all but a honest seller tells you what there needs to be said about the selled item so if you want to hide behind paper well do it. But i am adding you @Andyto the list also
Sorry for misunderstanding the thread. I thought we were discussing what is right or wrong here
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk

and313 said:
Look, very nice and all but a honest seller tells you what there needs to be said about the selled item so if you want to hide behind paper well do it. But i am adding you @Andyto the list also
Sorry for misunderstanding the thread. I thought we were discussing what is right or wrong here
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure @bornnslippy would have if asked. As with 99% of any private sales it is up to the buyer to inspect/question and agree to the sale.
No need to apologize, right & wrong are very different from legal & illegal. And is it appears nothing, illegal (UK) has happened. It's a civil matter anyway, hence the small claims court. I tend to keep all my old devices. Still have my HTC Kaiser, Hero & Desire HD

Andy said:
I'm sure @bornnslippy would have if asked. As with 99% of any private sales it is up to the buyer to inspect/question and agree to the sale.
No need to apologize, right & wrong are very different from legal & illegal. And is it appears nothing, illegal (UK) has happened. It's a civil matter anyway, hence the small claims court. I tend to keep all my old devices. Still have my HTC Kaiser, Hero & Desire HD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agree to that. Its just sad that people are taking advantage from such a system and then still use the system against the ones who just didnt know and expected something else. Sad sad world
Sent from my One X using Tapatalk

Hi Guy thanks for the replies
The guy who bought it never once asked if it was rooted or anything like that
If he had asked i would have told him no need to lie
If i sell a phone in the future i will put back to stock or ask if they wanted rooted

bornnslippy said:
Hi Guy thanks for the replies
The guy who bought it never once asked if it was rooted or anything like that
If he had asked i would have told him no need to lie
If i sell a phone in the future i will put back to stock or ask if they wanted rooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He wouldnt have a leg to stand on... If you say it was through Gumtree its a placeholder for ads not a governing body. They wouldn't do anything and a small claims court wouldn't touch it either. Its a private item being sold second hand. Even without a receipt you could claim ignorance and say you've never seen the phone before. Who's to say your lying??? Without evidence it wont stand up in court and so i wouldnt worry. Move on and forget it. Or email back saying good luck, I look forward to hearing from you, my solicitor will be in touch! always a stern bullyboy tactic that can work both ways

Overheated phone, Samsung standing family up

Just when you think the media couldn't make things any worse for Samsung..
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/...r-galaxy-note-7-phone-overheated?sf38749124=1
I fully understand Samsung has a lot on their mind, but come on..

Not sure what is expected here. Samsung told everyone to return the phone to their carrier if they got it from them and her carrier was Sprint. Return it to Sprint as you were advised. Samsung reps cannot respond to every claim.

Couple of scammers... I watched the video and the lady is calmly holding the thing while it's smoking lol. That thing would be way too got to touch if it was real. Oh and how convenient they had a surveillance camera in the room. How many people do you know have surveillance cameras in their living room?

Isn't the Hawai incident old news?

Sigh.. Official mandatory recall now. Just saw the news on Facebook.

DeMi-GoD said:
Sigh.. Official mandatory recall now. Just saw the news on Facebook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
? its already happened , such future incident be it legit or hoax , those wanting to claim some sort of insurance thru this , good luck , samsung doesnt want to deal with it anymore

It was voluntary before. The cpsc just issued a second recall I'm guessing it's mandatory now. No recalled devices are allowed on planes either.. http://m.androidcentral.com/cpsc-is...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

andyahs said:
Not sure what is expected here. Samsung told everyone to return the phone to their carrier if they got it from them and her carrier was Sprint. Return it to Sprint as you were advised. Samsung reps cannot respond to every claim.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like others have stated elsewhere, there is/was no official recall at the time. If someone doesn't follow the news or websites like this, they may not even know the issue was happening as no emails or texts are send out yet. I'm not saying they didn't know, but it is possible it happens to people who are unaware of it. That said, I believe this happened just before Samsung pulled the plug.
DeMi-GoD said:
How many people do you know have surveillance cameras in their living room?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually have two in my living room as part of my security at home. It's not as uncommon as you may think.

The recall is official now. I just posted a link.

DeMi-GoD said:
It was voluntary before. The cpsc just issued a second recall I'm guessing it's mandatory now. No recalled devices are allowed on planes either.. http://m.androidcentral.com/cpsc-is...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks.. and ugh, that totally blows. Guess I'll be going to the store to get my Note 4 reactivated after all
DeMi-GoD said:
The recall is official now. I just posted a link.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol yeah, just missed your post as I had my reply window open for a bit too long lol

svache said:
Thanks.. and ugh, that totally blows. Guess I'll be going to the store to get my Note 4 reactivated after all
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, does this mean it's actually mandatory now? Guess I'll be getting rid of mine top after reading you can't bring a recalled device onto a plane.

DeMi-GoD said:
Yeah, does this mean it's actually mandatory now? Guess I'll be getting rid of mine top after reading you can't bring a recalled device onto a plane.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm a bit unsure about the "mandatory" part.. the thing is, if you paid for it, you own it. But if something happens... there will be no insurance company that will help you out, let alone the trouble you may get into if something happens to the property of another person. Up until an official recall, you could always wiggle yourself out of those, now not so much anymore. I'm expecting official messages, such as texts, emails, phone pop ups etc to go out pretty soon too.

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/S...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones didnt mention anything about mandatory recall

Aimara said:
https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2017/S...-Additional-Incidents-with-Replacement-Phones didnt mention anything about mandatory recall
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So this doesn't really change anything from before? Other than its illegal to sell it or take it on a plane.

I'd say it makes it official, which pretty much means you're on your own if you keep it. You can't fly with it, likely not get it through security at certain places, and not sell it. And if something happens, better prepare for a huge s**tstorm to happen :/

DeMi-GoD said:
So this doesn't really change anything from before? Other than its illegal to sell it or take it on a plane.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a mandatory recall ordered by the Commission. copyed from cpsc , well its didnt mention anything about bringing it on a plane , to play safe just get a spare phone

andyahs said:
Not sure what is expected here. Samsung told everyone to return the phone to their carrier if they got it from them and her carrier was Sprint. Return it to Sprint as you were advised. Samsung reps cannot respond to every claim.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well.... you don't know much about the law.
The manufacturer, not the seller, is responsible for their dangerous product. Although even the seller can be held liable in a lawsuit.
Under the law, the way Samsung (the manufacturer) handles incidents of their dangerous product will be brought up in court. It will actually result in Samsung having to pay out more than if they handled the situation properly and responsibly.
These people need to sue. Only when you hit them (the manufacturer) in the pocket book does it make a statement and promote change. Each lawsuit against Samsung for their dangerous product is a lesson learned and a motivation to make sure whatever product manufactured going forward is safe.
Lawsuits are very important.

kat.hy said:
Well.... you don't know much about the law.
The manufacturer, not the seller, is responsible for their dangerous product. Although even the seller can be held liable in a lawsuit.
Under the law, the way Samsung (the manufacturer) handles incidents of their dangerous product will be brought up in court. It will actually result in Samsung having to pay out more than if they handled the situation properly and responsibly.
These people need to sue. Only when you hit them (the manufacturer) in the pocket book does it make a statement and promote change. Each lawsuit against Samsung for their dangerous product is a lesson learned and a motivation to make sure whatever product manufactured going forward is safe.
Lawsuits are very important.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like you don't either.

I live in Hawaii and the news just wants a story.
Hawaii has a huge theft problem so just about everyone including my self has a camera in there home.
I will miss my note 7 I returned mine after this story.
She sure Was calm when it blew up lol

Samsung Galaxy Note 7 cut off by New Zealand mobile networks

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/04/samsung-galaxy-note-7-cut-off-by-new-zealand-mobile-networks/ I even do not know how to comment it...

It isn't like one didn't know it was coming. Bound to happen sooner or later.
Sent from my BBA100-1 using Tapatalk

This should be illegal
Enviado desde mi SM-N930F mediante Tapatalk

Before it was just some rep saying it but now its official carriers are going to do this.

Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to

statikk1 said:
Time to backup efs and find a usable imei to change to
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's going to come to that. I am sure I can find a suitable old phone to clone.

was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns. it's the same as I was reading the other day certain UK insurance companies are looking to void the insurance if a Note is anywhere near the incident. they are already banned on pretty much every airline, is it really worth putting up with a year of having to avoid people who don't want the phone in any situation it could cause a problem? the local hospitals in my area in the UK actually have a full ban on the Note as well if you are in the hospital with one you will be escorted by security off the grounds of the hospital and not allowed to return until you have got rid off the phone off site.
so yeah if you want to use a service and they have safety concerns and want to ban something that is entirely up to them, if you want to hang onto something that is potentially dangerous and take a chance that is up to you, but end of the day if it's their house it's their rules.

Belimawr said:
was obvious something like this was coming, they can't afford to legally force people to return the phones but since the recall is in effect they can legally disable them due to safety concerns.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.

Chippy_boy said:
It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One of the phone has inside key for immortality hidden by one of samsung's engineer and now they try to find it by recalling all of them. Some people new it beforehand and tried to get to the key by smashing phone which then got fire as a result which gave solid base to recall all units by Samsung.
The rep from Verizon explained it to me. He also said Verizon employed some psychic to find the key by simply touching every note 7 before sent it to Samsung...
He said he hates one of the psychic to the guts because he touches iPhones as well and this is not professional.

Chippy_boy said:
Yes, but who is the "they" here?
What's in it for Verizon or Vodafone? Samsung can't block IMEI numbers. I'm genuinely puzzled why the industry is so hell bent on getting all of these phones out of circulation. The efforts they are going to are not commensurate with the levels of damage to people and property we have seen. Which incidentally, seem to be declining by the day.
The fact is that a single Note7 is about 100x less dangerous than a single Honda (or any other) motorbike. Does it not strike people as rather weird that all these agencies are trying so hard to get rid of Note7's? It does me.
I would have thought all that was needed was for Samsung to say they there's a problem and that you shouldn't use it and that if you do, it's at your own risk. But they are trying MUCH MUCH harder than this. It's almost like they know something terrible about the phone and are not telling us.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.

Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gosh, I hadn't thought of that.

I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.

pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks like Australia doesn't outlaw recalled products.
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/news/samsung-galaxy-note7
There is no wording to mention it's illegal rather that ACCC "strongly urges"

pinetreehater said:
I promise you they will get sued and lose if they do that here in the US. It is not the carrier's job to protect citizens, especially if they have no proof the phone is definitely going to burn.
I believe it is against the law to posses a recalled product in Australia and several European countries. Not so in the United States.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Question. If I see a robbery, rape, fire or an accident or some other public safety concern, should I attempt to dial 911 to assist or should I shrug it off because I am a rogue accident waiting to happen? Should I shudder in fear so much as to avoid calling altogether?
Should I report myself to authorities?.....lol
I'd say no because I am neither illegal or criminal, get it?

whoofit said:
I have no idea where in the world it is legal or illegal to possess a recalled product but I agree wholeheartedly that there will definitely be lawsuits in the US if these phones are blacklisted. Without a doubt....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Having said that, here's me hoping that New Zealand users start suing which will serve to not give anybody else ideas :laugh:

http://www.droid-life.com/2016/11/0...imit-battery-60-continue-remind-users-recall/
Very soon Samsung will block all service.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

As long as Samsung gets replacement phones/refunds to all they promised, I don't mind the IMEI block so much. Problem is that 19 days ago, they promised me a replacement S7E would come "within 21 days". I contacted them yesterday about how this was going since 21 days is almost up, and...They have run out of S7E stock (black Onyx) and don't know when new stock is coming...
This is Australia though, where they have just sent the 60% thing through and no official IMEI block discussed, yet..
Sent from my SM-N930F using Tapatalk

Verizon in the USA is also considering flagging accounts and suspending service for those of us who have a Note 7. I purchased it outright for $864 and was totally blown away with how nice the phone is. I don't want to return it.
The first batch was recalled due to a failure of the batteries circuitry to stop the charge. Statistic tell me that if an electrical component were to fail (aka infant mortality) then it would occur very early in the like cycle of a device. My device was always left overnight charging (until I learned about the 80% rule and battery life), and would never even get warm to the touch on either the usb-C or wireless charging. I was confident that my chances were slim to have an issue, but I returned it when they got the second batch of phones.
The failure of the second batch is being blamed on internal battery layers that are so close that they short out causing the catastrophic shorting of the battery. Again, no one knows how close is too close for these layers as Samsung never disclosed the details of the design much further. My phone gets charged every 30-36 hours since I got it and I have not had any issues. My second (current) Note 7 is even cooler when charging than the first one and as I never charge about 80%, my risk is even less. (what ever "less than less than 1%" is) I figure if my batteries plates were shorting out, I would have known it by now. So I feel my current phone is also safe.
Samsung or Verizon can not force me to return it. What they can do is exactly what they are: constant texts about the recall and now Verizon has stated (the store rep told me this when I went to inquirer about any changes to the return policy) that after November 25th, they will be suspending service. They told me originally the date was Nov 7th, but it got moved back. So take it with a grain of salt. I sometimes think that the reps don't have a clue. They will give owners no choice if they do this. But the question I ask is do we really own this? Verizon has already returned every penny I paid for the phone back to me. So in a sense I have the phone now for free, and that's not quite right either.
With the S8 four months away and a new Note 8 5-6 months after that (if rumors are true), Samsung in Korea is giving some great deals for those of us who stay loyal. (Korean customers if they stay with Samsung not only get the same $100 (equivalent currency) credit we are getting in the USA, but are also getting an opportunity to upgrade with no penalty to the S8 and Note 8. The new S8 and Note 8 will be sold for 1/2 the list price to these customer! I only hope the USA will get this same offer.
I agree that airlines and businesses have the right to ban the phone, and the liability now rest 99.9% with those of us who keep the phone. We have been warned in many ways. Its a slippery slope. Where does our right to keep it cross the line and endanger someone else? I looks at this like the smoking ban in the USA. Restaurants use to allow smoking in the dining rooms. They then morphed into having a "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections. I cant tell you how many times I would be in the non-smoking section that was right next to a smoking section and still had to breath their second hand smoke. I was glad when all restaurants when smoke free as did most businesses. I happen to be on the other side of the fence on this issue.
I only hope someone here extracts the firmware and kernel and can adapt it to say the S7 or another note device. I'm guessing the new 8 series will be very similar.

Belimawr said:
lets say your phone does fail and causes considerable property of physical damage what would you then do? in the majority of cases the person will try to sue Samsung, the carrier or other so these firms are taking every effort to get the point across if you are still holding onto the phone it is entirely on you, if they take every option to stop people using the phone they are 100% free and clear as they have done everything possible to stop the use of a potentially defective device.
now on the other hand looking at all the places and insurance firms trying to discourage use of the phone or banning it, if your phone goes up in say a locker and damages the belonging of several other people would you be willing to cover those damages? because with the amount of action taken to discourage the use of the phone you are at a point where the user is 100% liable and firms will ban it because they know the type of person hanging onto the phone will likely be the type who would try to sue someone rather than admit fault and that is why people are trying to stop the use of the device "in their house" because they know it is likely them who will lose out and have to take legal action to recoup damages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Save your breath... common senses does not apply here. At least to some. Saying anything other than keeping the Note7 will just cause you to be branded as part of the conspirator.

It makes no sense what so ever to keep the phone outside of ego issues. Either "look at me I am a rebel" or "I've got a phone you can't get."
- Alternatives with nearly the same specs are out (Pixel and V20 both outperform the Note 7)
- support is going to be dead, Samsung and 3rd party
- it's not going to receive updates
- it's a hazard, Samsung didn't just kill one of their golden eggs for fun.
- keeping your phone affects more than just you.