Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Member

Not yet. I will keep you posted....

0 Likes
Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Leader

I have my note 4 as a backup to my IPhone in case something happens lol. Your response was hilarious tho

0 Likes
Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Sr. Member

Ew gross Crapple

0 Likes
Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Member

ok google: do lemon laws cover cell phones?

http://legalcafe.com/2014/01/top-10-lemon-law-myths/

(8) My consumer good is not a car

Most people believe that their state’s lemon law applies only to cars. Your state’s lemon law applies to all consumer goods over $10.00, which includes cars, trucks, SUV’s, RV’s, motorcycles, vans and even mopeds. Additionally, your state’s lemon law applies to computers, cell phones, printers, cameras, and even home appliances (refrigerators, washers, dryers, and dishwashers).

Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Member

Reading comprehension:  a trade in is not a pay off for your previous phone if you own it, it is  a down payment, which is covered under lemon laws

0 Likes
Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Sr. Leader

srisque wrote:

Reading comprehension: a trade in is not a pay off for your previous phone if you own it, it is a down payment, which is covered under lemon laws

EXCEPT that trade in is to get you out of your PRIOR contract. Has nothing to do with the subsequent purchase. The purchase of your PRIOR phone and the terms of THAT agreement from 1-24 months ago has NOTHING to do with a purchase you make AFTER that transaction.

You had 2 purchases. The first one, the S7 Edge(or whatever other phone you had prior to the Note 7) gave you the OPTION to return the device and stop making payments. YOU chose to take that option. THAT contract concluded with that choice.

You THEN start ANOTHER contract by purchasing the Note 7. THAT phone ended up being a lemon. You return it and you get a refund on any money towards THAT purchase. THAT concludes THAT contract. NOW some people are saying Verizon is trying to force them to use their upgrade to purchase a different phone in order to return the Note 7. IF that is the case, THAT is wrong. They should have the option to simply return the device without a new purchase, KEEPING their upgrade if that is what they want. They should THEN be able to activate a device they get from some other source which would NOT affect their upgrade if they wanted to keep it, swappa.com, for instance.

SAME thing would have happened had you purchased a car that had turned out to be a lemon and had returned a different leased car before that purchase. Lemon laws don't have provisions so you would get your original leased car back and continue on with that lease. You either purchase another car or go without. The same terms apply to this fiasco. That is why these "annual upgrade" programs(i.e. phone leases) are such a bad deal for the consumer. If anyone loses, it will be the consumer. Even when NOTHING goes wrong, it is still a bad deal for the consumer. I see in MANY cases in these forums people have only had their prior phone for a mere 3 months, having a $300+ payment to reach the 50% payoff amount. 50% of full retail to BORROW a phone for 3 months???? REALLY? HOW is that a good deal???, yet people seem to have been happy with it until something went wrong.

Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Member

Except rcschnoor  you are wrong again:

Not everybody trades in a phone to pay for prior contract...

And in that case IT IS a down payment.

and hence my point exactly stands. By lemon laws, Samsung (or verizon if they take charge of the samsung process) need to return fair compensation for all colaterals.

The car analogy is also wrong in this case, it is not a lease car you are returning, but a trade-in car you own, and it is also a down payment and covered by Lemon law.

Devil is in the details....

For people whom didn't own the phone I agree it is different. But one may argue that a fait value for a used phone need to be somewhat consistent .

But I agree with you on the annual upgrade being bad things....

0 Likes
Highlighted

Re: Verizon not compliant with Samsung Recall, making money of note7??

Sr. Leader

I missed your original example of the "trade-in" and not returning a phone which had not been paid off. On that, I agree the person should get that amount back. Unfortunately, I think this only would affect a SMALL portion of the people complaining about putting down $300 towards a new device.

The vast majority of people complaining about "putting down" $300 towards the price of a new phone, however, are simply doing so to get out of a purchase agreement of their prior phone and would not qualify to get that money back. The majority of people are complaining about being on an annual upgrade program and sending in their phone as the down payment on the new phone when they don't actually own the phone they sent in, they only own HALF of the phone they sent in.

You point about phone FULLY owned and "traded in" for credit, I agree they should get that amount back.Smiley Happy

0 Likes