Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 121718192021222324 LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 468
  1. #421  
    Quote Originally Posted by matthew23
    Well, I officially give up. Countless hours of e-mailing and arguing with Sprint reps has got me nowhere. It sucks because when I got the phone, the sprint rep told me I'd be eligible for it (i think at the time it was open for anyone, not just business customers). I argued a reliance theory with the rep (i relied on the sprint rep's assertion that I'd be eligible for the promotion and that was one of the main reasons I got the phone--can you tell I'm a lawyer?!) but they are ignorant.

    Oh well, I guess I'll sit back and watch everyone talk about the programs they got with their free $100. haha.


    Matthew,

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your agreement certainly falls outside of the statute of frauds so you do have a good chance at successful litigation if you argue promissory estoppel (if you want to take it that far). If I'm mistaken though, please correct me (I'm merely a 1L )

    Besides adjudication, you can contact the BBB and try to resolve your issue through them; I've heard of many success stories.

    Good Luck!
  2. #422  
    The site now says you had to buy/activate your phone after 1/16/2005. Did it always say that? I tried some time ago (I bought in Dec) and it told me they would contact me by email (it couldnt find my PCS phone number). Never heard back.
  3. #423  
    My second Treo passed its 14 day post activation mark and the web form generated a certificate on the first pass. I'm all set. Thanks treocentral.com community!
    Last edited by toofargone; 04/01/2005 at 01:03 PM.
  4. #424  
    So the code that was generated by that helpful Sprint PCS customer care agent DIDN'T WORK!!

    I was furious! I called back customer care and sent emails through my Sprint account to ecare and then finally a supervisor got on the phone and said that he was going to contact Brian Gorzny again since his name is tied to the account. I told him Brian is not responsible any longer and the supe replied that until this information is updated, he is responsible.

    Long story short, Brian replied to the supervisor and gave me another email address: promotionredemption@mail.sprint.com

    Also try: Melissa.A.Heeney@mail.sprint.com, Starr.W.Knox@mail.sprint.com
    these guys are Sprint contractors responsible for dealing with this promotion I guess.

    Include:

    Name
    Sprint PCS#
    Device
    Date Activated

    To my surprise, I received two emails back. One confirming my information and the other with the code which I just tried and it worked! I did the worm hole thing first described by Turbosteve way back in Post#30 and chose:

    ringo
    Warefare Inc
    Apache vs Hind
    Kinoma Media Album

    The Holy Grail of the Handango Promotional Code is finally over!!!
  5. #425  
    I hate you guys. i got an email back from Melissa saying my plan was not eligible for the promotion...
  6. #426  
    Thanks For That!
    "Heroes and Cowards both fear the same things...heroes just react to it differently"
    -Cus D'Mato
  7. #427  
    Quote Originally Posted by michaeljc70
    The site now says you had to buy/activate your phone after 1/16/2005. Did it always say that? I tried some time ago (I bought in Dec) and it told me they would contact me by email (it couldnt find my PCS phone number). Never heard back.
    No, at first it did not have a "Buy After" date on the promotion and was not limited to business customers. That changed after the word got out about the promotion. As I recall, at first, it did say something like "recent purchase" but there was no concrete restrictions.

    I bet whoever started this promotion caught a whole lot of crude from the people it is causing headaches to at Sprint. What a mess!
  8. #428  
    Well, I'm trying now to email Melissa. Then I'll try the other 2. D@##it! I'm going to get my $100!!! Either that or be $100 worth of PITA to Sprint.
  9. #429  
    I finally got my code. Now it seems the field where you enter the promo code is unable to be selected. ***BOOs from the crowd**
  10. #430  
    Quote Originally Posted by espionagelfe
    Matthew,

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your agreement certainly falls outside of the statute of frauds so you do have a good chance at successful litigation if you argue promissory estoppel (if you want to take it that far). If I'm mistaken though, please correct me (I'm merely a 1L )

    Besides adjudication, you can contact the BBB and try to resolve your issue through them; I've heard of many success stories.

    Good Luck!

    Matthew23 needs to show detrimental reliance. It is a way of getting around such things as the statute of frauds and the parole evidence rule. The statute of frauds sets up the requirements for the need that certain contracts be in writing for certain circumstances (real property, contracts for more than $500.00, contracts that are for more than one year). Parole evidence, simply put, is that the written contracts almost always prevails over any additional information, particular spoken changes to the contract. To change a writing, there must be a writing essentially. Now when the terms are a bit muddles, or, as we have here, the consideration for entering the contract is beyond the scope of the writing, then detrimental reliance can be employed. He would not ha,ve entered into the agreement, but for the understanding that he would recieve the $100.00 gift certificate. Since the gift certificate or promotional material in general is not specifically mentioned in the contract, he could use this as detrimental reliance, regardless of the written contract. There is also another snafu in Sprint's practices: when you agree to a contract over the phone, there is no "signing" of that contract as is required by the Statures of Frauds. It has to be in writing when it is to go on for more than a year and many of us have signed on for contracts for two years. I have not put a signature to a contract with sprint since I signed up in 2000. Not on purpose, they just never send me paperwork to do so. Verizon as least needs you to fax a copy of their contract to them. As we have seen with the gift certificate incident, they are not about forethough. I am not condoning screwing Sprint over, but when they charge you for 50 bucks for going over 20 minutes, they expect you to live by their deal, even though you didn't sign a contract. If you were led to believe that you would be getting a 100 dollar gift certificate, than you have relied to your detriment on a promise made by sprint and have been damaged: you are out the benefit of the bargain of that money for the software.
  11. #431  
    Oh, and for the uninitiated, Promissory Estoppel and Detrimental Reliance are essentially the same thing, so I am in effect agreeing with espionagelfe.
  12. #432  
    I agree with both of you, that's why I suggested a reliance theory. But, one more things needs to be looked at in our IRAC analysis: is it worth it? haha.

    I have come to accept that this is the way Sprint does business; they are very unorganized and most of their customer reps are misinformed or ignorant of Sprint's policies.

  13. #433  
    Well, I got another blow-off response from Melissa. I'm about to make myself into $100 worth of headache & P.I.T.A. to Sprint.
  14. #434  
    Been tryibg to catch up with this thread but got lost about 10 pages back. Will the latest method of getting a code work for someone who purchased the 650 in March?


    Ivory...
  15. #435  
    I got a response back from Melissa (e-mail above - thanks) that the online database for http://sprint.handango.com/validation will be updated on the 8th with new cell numbers.

    I am a business customer that is elgible according to Melissa, but the website still didn't validate me. She said friday.

    My 650 was activated on March 11th.

    Thanks,

    Bonger
  16. #436  
    matthew, at the very least, ask for a service credit for all the trouble. Sometime it's 35 bucks, sometimes 50 bucks. They may even give you fifty percent off your next bill.
  17. #437  
    That is actually a good idea. they already gave me 120 minutes free (big deal, right? considering I probably spent twice that on the phone with them trying to resolve this whole thing)...
  18. #438  
    Thats wild. I purchased mine the last week of March and I got my code this past Monday. I think its just a screw-up in Sprint and Handango's validation system. Maybe if people hadn't abused the system all these problems wouldn't have occured.
  19. #439  
    It's a combination of both: if you leave your keys in your car with the engine running and the door unlocked, the person who steals the car is just as much of an ***** as the person who leaves their car prone like that. It is still not right to steal, but pretty dumb of Sprint to do what they did. Theft derserves criticism, but Sprint left themselves twisting in the wind on this. Matthew and I would call it an "attractive nuisance."
  20. #440  
    Quote Originally Posted by nicegoogly
    Matthew and I would call it an "attractive nuisance."
    Nice try, but not even close. The attractive nuisance doctrine relates to leaving a dangerous condition available to children and others. Letting people steal your software isn't a dangerous condition (like a swimming pool, open pit, etc). It was just poor planning.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!

Posting Permissions