Quote:
Originally Posted by ebmorgan
Actually, you're wrong. When a product is advertised with specific features, then it must provide the features upon sale unless otherwise stated. This is the basic fundemantals of the Consumer Protection Act.
If you buy a new car, wouldn't you expect it to drive? Have windsheild wipers that work? No exhaust leaks? Of course. And if any of those things are happening then they are fixed IMMEDIATELY.
If you buy a an HDTV with a card reader in it, wouldn't you expect the card reader to work?
Sprint has a documented and self-admittedly BROKEN device with many issues. Even the Washington State Attorney Generals Office thinks there is merit to the claim. My filed claim to the WA-AGO started an investigation. The AGO has dispatched an inquiry to Sprint in VA requesting full disclosure of the situation. Unfortuately, Sprint can refuse. They are only required to divulge the info if subpoenaed by a court. But if they offer resistence, I imaging that would only singnify to the AGO that something IS going on, and then they may take it further.
|
So what exactly was advertised as functioning which is not and is different from any other handset out there?
Show me exactly, try not to quote comparables which dont compare.
You want to attack Sprint, but this is an HTC device.
So why would you sue a car dealership when the manufacturer would really carry the burden?
Although i respect your prespective, sounds to me like a frivolous lawsuit and another waste of good old taxpayer money. That case will go nowhere. Crazy to think that in some way people percieve that as an acceptable action when it clearly doesnt do much to positively impact the situation, nor is it likely to carry any wieght and go anywhere. If the Washington State Attorney General is legally advising this action doesnt sound like they are a very competent litigator, more like starstruck by a well branded company and the thoughts of media exposure.