I wonder how strict they are on this policy. Love the phone and really think it can do alot more like its younger cousins. But I wonder at what line a unlocked bootloader voids warranty. With the MyTouch 3G or g1 I really never worried about doing it because it I messed up or something went wrong I know I can convince T-Mobile to replace it but with HTC, say a volume button stops working do you think with an unlocked bootloader they won't do anything and charge you or is it probably just a scare tatic. Might hold off for root till a few months later to see if we get a img file to do a full restore or not but not ready to risk it just yet. Or atleast till there are some good roms yet. Just still in love with it since i just got it and maybe when that wares off I will root. But do you know of anywhere if anything HTC has stated anything about this.
You cant know for sure until you send it in. But the text is clear, it will void your warranty. which means ALL the warranty. Your warranty is not broken up into separate parts.
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Heck ya... this is what everyones real concern is, IMO. (Well I guess I can't talk for everyone but..) I take responsibility if I unlock and then some how brick, yes I'll be upset but it is my fault. However my real concern is if I unlock and then there is a real hardware problem.
yeah- the way i read the post in cyanogens bacon thread:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=5306428&postcount=54
"Obviously there's probably little to deter people from digging into this, but for whatever it's worth it was quite a lot of effort to get buy-in for shipping with the "unlock" feature, there remains concern about potential increases in RMAs as a result (and thus the warranty language in the unlock process)."
i read this as saying that they expect more warranty returns due to the easy unlock but not by much. Does this mean that we can return the phone if we have a hardware issue unrelated to the lock? i dont expect it and never have (rooted both my G1 and my magic the day i got them) but it'd be nice to know.....
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
melterx12 said:
can you give a source to back this up? Im gonna unlock my bootloader right now if this is true!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did: the Magnusson-Moss Act.
Blueman101 said:
dunno, insurance companies have been able to "void your warranty" (coverage of your health) if something totally unrelated was not announced when you got your insurance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a disclosure issue - hiding something is different.
-bZj
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's interesting. Now we just need to read the N1's warranty, and see if there is any similar thing to that(because they can always have some clause that says the bootloader being unlocked voids all parts of the warranty).
down8 said:
Warranties are, legally, broken into separate parts.
The manufacturer has to prove that what you modified actually relates to the warranty issue.
If you have a hardware issue, HTC would have to PROVE that your software contributed to the damage to be able to void your warranty.
Magnusson-Moss Act, is the law you'd look-up, I believe.
-bZj
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements.
First, warranties are legally binding contracts and are considered "integrated agreements". That means that a court will automatically hold that the document and whatever provisions are included therein are the entire warranty, UNLESS you can prove that there were additional documents or forms that you relied on. That's not the case here.
Second, if you read the warranty, item 7 (on p. 3-4 of the booklet included in the N1 box) explicitly states that "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY SHALL NOT APPLY IF:"... then lists several conditions, ending with 7(h) "the bootloader is unlocked by the Customer (allowing third party OS installation) using the fastboot program." This is an express term in the warranty, so the warranty is void. At this point, the only way you'd be able to get out of it, is if you were to argue to the courts that you never read the warranty and if you had, you either wouldn't have unlocked it, or you wouldn't have kept the phone! This is what's called an "unconscionability" argument. Even in this case though, most courts will side with the company due to the long-established doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware), and the court would first ask if you know how to read, and if you say yes, then it would hold that it was your responsibility to read the warranty and you have no excuse. Maybe some court would hold to the contrary. But that's why HTC was smart enough to include an express waiver...
Third, before unlocking the bootloader, you explicitly had to accept that your warranty was void if you unlocked it! No court anywhere would ever let you out of this.
As for Magnusson-Moss (we studied this as well), it's not at all related to this conversation! I don't know where the **** you come up with this information. All it does is create a federal mandate for companies to conspicuously state whether any warranty is "full" or "limited". Most warranties, including HTC's, are limited warranties. M-M further states that if there are any ambiguous terms in a warranty, that they will be interpreted in favor of the customer. However, this doesn't apply to this case either, because it is completely unambiguous in two different places!
It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.... you don't understand the law, and probably have never really tried (it's not rocket science, I can assure you). Your improper claims can seriously screw someone over if they lose their warranty based on your incorrect assumptions then end up needing it for a defective phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
TunsterX2 said:
There's no point trying to skittle round the point. At the end of the day, if you interfere with the software they placed there which has been extensively tested; why would they support unlocked/modified software which they have no idea how it'll affect the device? That's quite simple to understand and I can see why Google have done this. It's to protect them.
Computer firmware/drivers is different. They test drivers and encourage you to upgrade them to keep the product working as best they can. When an end-user creates modified untested firmware/drivers, this is different.
I'm sure there's a comprehensive warranty on computer devices which stops you applying modified software not supported by them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I appreciate what you're saying, but as long as you can prove that any modification made cannot have caused a specific failure, then Id be interested to see how a blanket "warranty void" statement would hold up in court. For example, a button/ trackball wont fall off due to unauthorized software being on the device, whereas a chip failure could be attributed to modifying firmware etc.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Ronaldo7 said:
Yeah, the reason I didnt mention the sales of goods act is because I dont think this applies since the phone is being bought in the US. As you say, warranties in the UK are in addition to the sales of goods act. Are you saying that if the phone was purchased from , say, google.co.uk in the future, the sales of goods act could be invoked for any hardware failure (respecting the fact that the onus is on the retailer (ie. google) to prove that any software tampering of the device caused the defect within the first 6months of purchase)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I believe this is correct. If you got a phone from Google UK, rooted it and then it fell to pieces the next day you would be able to go back and return it because it was not of satisfactory quality. As you rightly say it would of course have to be something other than your actions that caused the failure - some kind of inherent defect. But as long as that is the case the manufacturer’s warranty is irrelevant. A lot of people don’t realise this and once they see a warranty they forget that, at least in the short term after purchase, they have a valid action against the person who sold them the goods.
Good right? Well here’s the other shoe – The problem with the Sale of Goods Act (and a lot of consumer legislation) is that its all so vague. “Satisfactory Quality”, “Reasonable Length of Time”. It leaves most people wondering what the heck that all means! You mention 6 months but this is just a rule of thumb. It doesn’t actually say that anywhere in the act.
So in contrast to a warranty, where you have a definitive answer going in on whether you have a claim or not, the Sale of Goods Act is a bit more uncertain. You have to make your claim a bit more. If your screen falls off around the 5 months mark its possible Google would try and resist the claim, saying too much time has passed. If something goes wrong with your phone that could or could not have been something to do with you rooting it (with no way of determining it either way) – again Google may resist your claim.
I am ... 99% certain that there is NO applicability of any of the above to something sold in the US and shipped to the UK. However I'll have to look into that for a definitive answer.
http://www.google.com/support/android/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=166519
What kind of things can void the warranty coverage?
Here are a few examples of actions that void the warranty coverage:
* rough handling of the device
* exposure of the device to extreme conditions
* tampering with the device, including removal or defacing of the serial number, IMEI number, or water indicator
* unauthorized opening or repair of the device
* tampering with or short-circuiting the battery
* unlocking the bootloader using the fastboot program
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Ronaldo7 said:
Cheers for the info. However, couldnt it be constituted as an "unfair term". For example, if HTC said the warranty was void if you took the phone outside, this would be ridiculous. Since smartphones are being marketed more as mobile computers, surely it is "unfair" not to be able to modify the operating system, much as you can do with a pc, without warranty for the hardware being voided?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As another poster said, this wouldn't be "unfair". A court would only ever begin to consider a term unfair if the consumer had no choice whatsoever. However, here you had the choice of not unlocking the bootloader and keeping your warranty, or returning the phone and buying another product.
Another argument that I could make for the consumer is that by including the exploit, it was "reasonably foreseeable" to HTC that people would unlock the bootloader... but HTC the argument is very weak in favor of the consumers and HTC would likely counter that the exploit is meant only for developers, not for everyday consumers.
BigDamHero said:
I don't know much about American law (I am a Trainee Solicitor, but in the UK) but I can tell you that this isn't going to come close to the legal definition of "unfair".
Warranties (at least over here) are entirely at the option of the manufacturer. If they want to have it fall away when you unlock the boot loader then it'll fall away when you unlock the bootloader. I've drafted one recently that does pretty much just that. They aren't required to provide one at all and what they put in it is thier choice. You are afforded most of your rights through sale of goods legislation and they are against the seller for things like goods not being of a satisfactory quality.
It may be that in US some minimum warranty is imposed by statute? With some set of minimum conditions? You'll need someone else to confirm that. However even if that is the case I'd bet any money that those minimum conditions basically equate to "you have to be able to use it as a PDA/Phone". At the end of the day you don't NEED to be able to unlock the boot loader to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We have many similarities... American law is based on British common law, my friend. (As is the law in most other countries that were part of the empire. ) Under American law, brand new items are required to have some sort of warranty...either limited or full (as per the Magnusson-Moss Act). Used items are not required to have any warranty, unless they fall under particular categories, which I can't recall at the moment. Anyway, as in British law, we do have a minimum statutory warranty for new items... the "implied warranty of merchantability". All that requires is that the product would pass without any objections to others in the trade, as being fit for the purpose for which it was manufactured. So in this case, the item was fit for use as a phone. Same as British law.
QMAN101 said:
Seeing as the warranty is so specific as in using "the fastboot program" instead of "a fastboot program" does using "fastboot-windows or fastboot-mac" fall outside of that. Cases are routinely decided upon by mere technicalities as this. I deal with warranties all the time (as a manufacturer) and have had to eat replacement costs due to technicalities in the warranty verbiage.
Unfortunately, this does not carry over to the big disclaimer that you see when unlocking, but was wondering if this technicality had any merit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can assure you that in 99% of the cases, the courts won't throw out a case for such a small detail... especially in a civil case. They would probably construe it as being a blanket statement... i.e. "fastboot program" is an umbrella term that covers fastboot-windows, fastboot-mac, etc.
I have also studied contract law in school, my friend. By "legally separated," I mean they cannot warranty only the entire unit, there are many parts of this phone: SDcard, screen, software, etc. If one is broken, and has no releation to the others, then it is "separate."
uansari1 said:
Wrong. Not to sound like an ass, but I'm a 3rd year law student and have studied contracts, their making, and causes for breach, extensively. The warranty is not "legally broken into separate parts". Please don't make such inane statements....
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sweetie, law student (you do sound a bit like an ass, btw), did you read the Magnuson-Moss Act before coming to your conclusion? Obviously you're going into defense, and not the enforcement side of the law.
Full text: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C50.txt
To ask "where the ****" MM comes into play, is pretty silly, given it is about protecting consumers from deceptive warranty practices - it does more than just state full or limited warranties.
I wouldn't bring a copy of wikipedia to court, but it does break things down in an easier to understand language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act
Here is the section I referred to:
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A more detailed section might read like this:
(c) No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumers using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name; except that the prohibition of this subsection may be waived by the Commission if (1) the warrantor satisfies the Commission that the warranted product will function properly only if the article or service so identified is used in connection with the warranted product, and (2) the Commission finds that such a waiver is in the public interest. (15 U.S.C.2302(C))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say that their exclusion of a "3rd party OS" runs right into this section of MM. The meaning is that GM can't force you to only use Mobil1 in your vehicle. You can use any oil you choose, so long as you use the correct viscosity & change it regularly - in fact, unless GM could prove the oil was the reason for failure (that's up to labs/lawyers), you could use canola oil & retain your warranty.
Thus, if you have a hardware problem, Google/HTC have to prove that the software/unlocking/etc. caused the damage to void your warranty. The argument would likely hinge on what is "unreasonable use," and if unlocking/rooting a piece of hardware you spent $500-600 on was reasonable. As for the bootloader issue being unambiguous, the same section also voids your warranty for normal wear-and-tear. I'd be far more concerned about a hardware issue, b/c connecting any unapproved accessory also voids your warranty.
All this being said, I am not a lawyer (an neither is Mr. Law Student), so if you're skerred, don't do it.
-bZj
Hi,
I am on this firmware version and haven't received any update yet. Is there a update that I can run using stock recovery? Is root necessary to update the firmware manually. I am on the 3 network in the UK. Can someone pls suggest a manual.
samkol18 said:
Hi,
I am on this firmware version and haven't received any update yet. Is there a update that I can run using stock recovery? Is root necessary to update the firmware manually. I am on the 3 network in the UK. Can someone pls suggest a manual.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
3 UK update via KIES or OTA on the phone .
Root and stock recovery have nothing to do with updates from 3 UK .
Root voids warranty .
Suggest you contact 3 UK to see if their is an update or not as you don't give any details no way of knowing .
Alternatives join XDA Developers and flash stock firmware via Odin .
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1671969
jje
Well i dont know about the UK. But in the US. Adam Outler (if you dont know that name youre under a rock) has found a way to prove that rooting doesnt void your warranty.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
What version are you on? There must not necessarely be an update for what you have.
Is there a update that I can run using stock recovery?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not through Stock Recovery, but yes you can manually run Updates. Pick the one you like off http://samfirmware.com (make sure it's for i9300)
and flash it through Odin (Download Mode)
But in the US. Adam Outler (if you dont know that name youre under a rock) has found a way to prove that rooting doesnt void your warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
At least over here it's that the warranty period is divided in 2 parts: in the first months the manufacturer has to prove you actually did something wrong (near impossible to prove), in the rest you have to prove it was a a manufacturing defect.
Most sellers will swap the device no questions asked anyway =)
b-eock said:
Well i dont know about the UK. But in the US. Adam Outler (if you dont know that name youre under a rock) has found a way to prove that rooting doesnt void your warranty.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a number of users have posted that Samsung have refused warranty on rooted phones and Samsung take the trouble to send a letter to all service outlets regarding root and spotting it on a phone . I will leave users to make their own mind up but as for me root voids warranty is what is said on the tin .
jje
I will leave users to make their own mind up but as for me root voids warranty is what is said on the tin .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The seller is your contract partner, not Samsung. And your contract partner has to fulfill warranty claims.
Don't know about you, but we got a consumer "union" here that sellers actually fear as it's rather quick to bring out the big guns, meaning the lawyers and court. Usually it's sufficient here to just tell the salesperson you'll call the "UCL" and they try to find an acceptable solution.
Acer puts warranty stickers on their computer cases reading "Warranty void if removed". In other words: you'll have to send in the computer to get a (costly) fan cleaning since you're not allowed to do it yourself. Luckily the EU and all countries I know of consider such restrictions to be against consumer rights. Manufacturers also cannot refuse warranty if you install Linux-based operating system on your computer instead of the Windows it shipped with.
The same applies to mobile phone too...
But I think we're getting off-topic
d4fseeker;29107617
Most sellers will swap the device no questions asked anyway =)[/QUOTE said:
O2 refused my SGS1 as it was rooted and had a custom rom .
On two counts one it was not the O2 firmware as supplied and two its voided Samsung's warranty .Ok i was probably unlucky with the guy that looked at the phone and many tech guys will just pick the phone up of the bench read the work report and try a factory reset .
But as the phone costs a lot of money for many i still suggest that the rule is custom rom and root voids warranty according to Samsung and to be aware of that unless you want to stand the risk of paying for repairs .
As to Samsungs warranty we have in addition to the retail sellers warranty of twelve months a limited warranty in addition from Samsung for twenty four months .
Pop on to some of the local user forums in the UK and you will find many many cases of sellers not swapping the phone after the first 14/28 days but sending it off for repair as the SOGA says they can .
jje
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As others have said you can flash an unbranded LFB through Odin and you will get all updates when Sammy publishes them, rather than your network, this will also remove your SIM lock.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
this will also remove your SIM lock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No. Network-lock (SIM-lock) is stored in the /efs/ directory and directly controlled by the modem. You need a Sim-unlock app or manually toggle the corresponding byte.
we have in addition to the retail sellers warranty of twelve months a limited warranty in addition from Samsung for twenty four months .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's why I never buy electronics from UK. We got 24 months warranty from the seller required by law.
O2 refused my SGS1 as it was rooted and had a custom rom .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sellers ALWAYS try to refuse warranty claims since it only costs them money (handling, Shipping, Tech guys,...). The key is forcing them to do it by
threatening with law(yers).
However if they can check if it has a custom ROM that means you can flash a standard ROM and have it repaired no questions asked
b-eock said:
Well i dont know about the UK. But in the US. Adam Outler (if you dont know that name youre under a rock) has found a way to prove that rooting doesnt void your warranty.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Adam's way off base. Here in the U.S., it is perfectly legal to invalidate a warranty based on customer induced damage or for violating the warranty terms themselves. For example, Samsung's U.S. warranty has enough exceptions to drive a truck through when it comes to being able to deny warranty coverage for a modified device. I’ve bolded the ones most applicable.
What is not covered?
This Limited Warranty is conditioned upon proper use of the Product. This Limited Warranty does not cover: (a) defects or damage resulting from accident, misuse, abnormal use, abnormal conditions, improper storage, exposure to liquid, moisture, dampness, sand or dirt, neglect, or unusual physical, electrical or electromechanical stress; (b) scratches, dents and cosmetic damage, unless caused by SAMSUNG; (c) defects or damage resulting from excessive force or use of a metallic object when pressing on a touch screen; (d) equipment that has the serial number or the enhancement data code removed, defaced, damaged, altered or made illegible; (e) ordinary wear and tear; (f) defects or damage resulting from the use of Product in conjunction or connection with accessories, products, or ancillary/peripheral equipment not furnished or approved by SAMSUNG; (g) defects or damage resulting from improper testing, operation, maintenance, installation, service, or adjustment not furnished or approved by SAMSUNG; (h) defects or damage resulting from external causes such as collision with an object, fire, flooding, dirt, windstorm, lightning, earthquake, exposure to weather conditions, theft, blown fuse, or improper use of any electrical source; (i) defects or damage resulting from cellular signal reception or transmission, or viruses or other software problems introduced into the Product; or (j) Product used or purchased outside the United States. This Limited Warranty covers batteries only if battery capacity falls below 80% of rated capacity or the battery leaks, and this Limited Warranty does not cover any battery if (i) the battery has been charged by a battery charger not specified or approved by SAMSUNG for charging the battery; (ii) any of the seals on the battery are broken or show evidence of tampering; or (iii) the battery has been used in equipment other than the SAMSUNG phone for which it is specified.As for Magnusson Moss, when Asus first started asking people to invalidate their warranties in order to unlock the bootloader, I asked one of our in-house attorneys if it was legal because I didn't think it was. Since unlocking the bootloader doesn't affect the operation of the product as originally Asus intended it to be sold its within their right to obviate your warranty if you agree to it.
Let's use an example following Adam's logic. Someone ships their phone off to Samsung because the headphone jack died. They say it's not covered under warranty because the bootloader's been unlocked and that non-Samsung s/w run on the device contributed to its failure. The phone owner says under "Magnusson Moss" you have to prove that my unlocking the bootloader caused the damage. They say that'll be $175 to repair the phone or $25 to ship it back unrepaired. At that point, those are the only two choices. Someone can later file reams of paperwork, invest gobs of time, and wait months for any type of relief either through legal channels or some state or government customer rights group but the phone will remain broken until then. No one can make Samsung fix a phone for free if they refuse to without putting in a lot of stress and time. What Adam says in this video is way over simplistic. You can have all the rights in the world but getting/having them enforced is a totally different matter.
Hey guys. Couple of quick questions. Cant seem to find the answer im after anywhere.
1. Is there any way of rooting my note without voiding warranty?
2. I found this guide which states that this method will not void warranty
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/5...3-lte-n9005-root-prerooted-stock-firmware.htm
However. The firmware they have linked to is this one 'SM-N9005XXUBMI7-ROOTED-KNOX_FREE.rar'
My baseband version is n9005XXUBMI6
My build number is JSS15J.N9005XXUBMI7
Will that firmware be compatible with my device. Really appreciate your help guys. Apologies if its all a bit noobish:silly:
Any tampering will trigger the counters and in turn, void your warranty. I emailed Samsung to see if triggering the Knox counter alone is enough to refuse a warranty repair and they confirmed that indeed it does.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 4
Here's my question. Do these other root methods work with sprints note 3?
Sent from my SM-N900P using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Consumer statutory rights
RavenY2K3 said:
Any tampering will trigger the counters and in turn, void your warranty. I emailed Samsung to see if triggering the Knox counter alone is enough to refuse a warranty repair and they confirmed that indeed it does.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the UK, Samsung as the manufacturer may well be able to deny a consumer any rights which it has offered (such as a special Samsung manufacturer's warranty) where such rights are additional to the customer's statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
However, neither Samsung nor the retailer can remove your statutory rights as a consumer against the retailer (including to ask for a repair or a refund) in relation to a product which you bought from a retailer. I very much doubt that Samsung will have said in its email to you that you will lose your statutory rights, though it may legitimately have said its own warranty would be invalidated by flashing alternative firmware. In brief, if there is an underlying fault in the product not caused by any change you have made to it, in the UK at least you may still have a perfectly good right to a repair or refund (perhaps only partial, depending on circumstances of the fault), whatever the status of the manufacturer's warranty.
For a useful layman's summary of UK position, see http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf.
dxzh said:
In the UK, Samsung as the manufacturer may well be able to deny a consumer any rights which it has offered (such as a special Samsung manufacturer's warranty) where such rights are additional to the customer's statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
However, neither Samsung nor the retailer can remove your statutory rights as a consumer against the retailer (including to ask for a repair or a refund) in relation to a product which you bought from a retailer. I very much doubt that Samsung will have said in its email to you that you will lose your statutory rights, though it may legitimately have said its own warranty would be invalidated by flashing alternative firmware. In brief, if there is an underlying fault in the product not caused by any change you have made to it, in the UK at least you may still have a perfectly good right to a repair or refund (perhaps only partial, depending on circumstances of the fault), whatever the status of the manufacturer's warranty.
For a useful layman's summary of UK position, see http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is interesting to know, but from the retail side of things, all they'll do is send the faulty item to the manufacturer for the assessment and repair, so won't they just tell "us" to jog on as soon as they see the counters, statutory rights or not? I'll copy the text from their reply into this post in a mo. Admittedly I'm not really wide to the ins and outs of the political side of all of this.
This is the reply I got from Samsung when I asked whether just triggering the Knox counter alone would void the warranty.
-----------------------------
Customer reference number:**********
Please quote your customer reference number when contacting Samsung*
Email response ID:**********
Dear *********
Thank you for contacting Samsung Customer Support.*
I am sorry you are experiencing issues with the information for your Samsung Galaxy Note 3. I can understand why you would like confirmation of your warranty status on the device.*
Any form of rooting the device will void the warranty on your handset. This includes both hardware and software warranty.*
You can read more information about our warranty policy at the following link:*
http://www.samsung.com/uk/support/warranty/warrantyInformation.do?page=POLICY.WARRANTY*
If there is anything else we can help with, please let us know.*
Our Customer Support Team love feedback! Share your thoughts on this response by completing the survey at the bottom of this page.*
Kind regards,*
Louise*
Online Support Team*
SAMSUNG Customer Support Centre*
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 4
I really think this is BS. This is Android and is it known that we love root and testing new things on our devices.
I have not had an Android device long without root! Going on 4 days with this Note 3 and just biting my fingers wondering if I should just root.
@dxzh is right but it's a matter of evidence. They will no doubt try to link the root to the fault you're claiming for. It will be up to you to show they are unrelated.
What is more interesting but hasn't yet been tested in UK law is the question of whether the devices should be capable of root without voiding the warranty for a consumer. That question is much more interesting, patricularly where they are using an open source OS and they release the kernel source for it.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 4
RavenY2K3 said:
That is interesting to know, but from the retail side of things, all they'll do is send the faulty item to the manufacturer for the assessment and repair, so won't they just tell "us" to jog on as soon as they see the counters, statutory rights or not? I'll copy the text from their reply into this post in a mo. Admittedly I'm not really wide to the ins and outs of the political side of all of this.
/
Any form of rooting the device will void the warranty on your handset. This includes both hardware and software warranty.*
You can read more information about our warranty policy at the following link:*
http://www.samsung.com/uk/support/warranty/warrantyInformation.do?page=POLICY.WARRANTY*
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In brief, it is the responsibility of the retailer to sort out repairs or refunds for defective products under UK consumer law. If the problem with the product is not caused by the consumer, then the consumer may well have a good case against the retailer. The retailer's statutory obligations are not likely to fall away if the consumenr simply flashes new firmware which causes no damage to the product.
The link given by Samsung seems to be a general description of the additional manufacturer's warrany and how to claim under it, not the detailed wording of the warranty itself. Digging out my old SGS2 manufacturer's warranty card received from Samsung in the box, there is at the end a typical statement that:
"This warranty does not affect the consumers statutory rights nor the consumers rights against the dealer from their purchase/sales agreement."
While the manufacturer's additional warranty set out on the warranty card (or wherever) on whatever terms it chooses may be lost by rooting, etc, I would take some comfort knowing that the important and valuable statutory rights a consumer has under the relevant local legislation, in the UK at least, subsist independently, primarily against the retailer. The consumer does not even need to go looking for the wording mentioned above in the manufacturer's warranty as, whether it is there or not, is not relevant to the continued existence of your statutory rights against the retailer.
From a retailer perspective, the obligations which they have to the consumer will depend on the circumstances. For example:
- if there was an underlying fault (such as duff pixels or a defective switch unconnected with the software loaded onto the device) or the device was not "fit for its purpose" or it was misdescribed, then the retailer (not its distributor or Samsung) is the one under an obligation to arrange a repair or refund in accordance with the legislation, irrespective of any manufacturer's warranty.
- if the problem is caused by the consumer dropping the phone or frying the CPU by overclocking it, then that is a matter not typically protected by the legislation. In this type of circumstance the loss of the additional rights might be significant, perhaps because additional accidental damage cover offered with the phone in the form of a warranty or insurance is invalidated or has exclusions linked to the modification of the device. However, even then the consumer's position may not be completely hopeless if:
** a term dening the warranty or insurance could be deemed unfair under UCTA 1977 (or similar legislation) - for example, it might be unfair to be denied accidental damage coverage for damage caused by dropping a phone in water if the reason coverage is denied is simply because the phone had been previously rooted. Warning: this type of claim based on unfairness though is not an ideal path to follow as outcome is uncertain (given legal judgement call) and journey there likely to be time-consuming; or
** a retailer (or the repairer on its behalf) does not associate revisions to the firmware with the problem resulting in the claim or chooses not to enforce the exceptions for some reason (eg the retailer is nice, incompetent, values ongoing relationship, has better things to do than argue, etc).
The OFT guide to the position of a UK retailer (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738..._explained.pdf) mentioned in my earlier post seems to be informative and written in plain English and gives, I believe, a really useful indicator of the grounds for returning goods for repair or refund in the UK and of a few extra rights a consumer might have when buying remotely - many of these rights will exist in a similar form throughout the EU, though implemented in a different way. Whether or not the average high street employee of the retailer in the UK is aware of the obligations of the retailer is a bit of a lottery, but someone in its head office will be and it is to the head office that the consumer may have to turn if the store itself is unhelpful. Fortunately in the UK at least, it is not generally the consumer's problem as to how the retailer sorts out with its distributor or the ultimate manufacturer (in this case Samsung) which of the retailer, distributor or manufacturer ultimately pays for the repair or refund where there is a good statutory claim.
dxzh said:
In brief, it is the responsibility of the retailer to sort out repairs or refunds for defective products under UK consumer law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you for that thorough explanation, well see what happens if it dies before I get the Note 4
Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk 4
dxzh said:
However, neither Samsung nor the retailer can remove your statutory rights as a consumer against the retailer (including to ask for a repair or a refund) in relation to a product which you bought from a retailer. I very much doubt that Samsung will have said in its email to you that you will lose your statutory rights, though it may legitimately have said its own warranty would be invalidated by flashing alternative firmware. In brief, if there is an underlying fault in the product not caused by any change you have made to it, in the UK at least you may still have a perfectly good right to a repair or refund (perhaps only partial, depending on circumstances of the fault), whatever the status of the manufacturer's warranty.
For a useful layman's summary of UK position, see http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/738369/738375/OFT002_SOGA_explained.pdf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dxzh said:
In brief, it is the responsibility of the retailer to sort out repairs or refunds for defective products under UK consumer law.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As you said, Samsung can legally choose to take NOTHING to do with you unless you bought the phone from them directly. The retailer is solely responsible for repair or replacement of faulty goods. In terms of liability, the manufacturer's involvement is incidental, as often they're best-placed to provide repair services. Of course, the manufacturer *may* choose to intervene and repair a product at their expense as a customer service gesture.
Good link, it could come in handy! Thanks!
RavenY2K3 said:
Any form of rooting the device will void the warranty on your handset. This includes both hardware and software warranty.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, warranty is not the same thing as invoking your statutory rights under the sale of goods act. It may well be the first point of call that your phone goes for warranty repair and is denied. The next step is to escalate the issue from routine warranty service to a you seeking redress under the relevant statutes.
This process can take months. To be honest, my personal opinion is that you're better threatening to stop paying contracts than threatening legal action, the latter means they'll probably refuse to talk to you from that point on and you'd have to liaise with their legal department. By that point you could be heading for the small claims court (as your next logical step) which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it does have some initial outlays. I think it would be preferable to get a resolution from customer services rather than a court.
Source: I've worked for a major retailer and been involved in two cases in small claims court (the customers lost both!). Also, I got a reasonable resolution once with a rooted HTC that T-Mob's repair centre refused to fix.
I say hell with them! I going to root mine. Cant stand having so much bloat on my stuff. Besides, without root is like having no eyes!