December 8, 2009 at 00:22iPhone 3G Court against MTS
Everything that is written below to me, as the author of this post, is indirectly related. My friend got into the situation. A huge request to all readers to treat the situation with understanding.
I am writing a post in order to find help or get professional advice from a lawyer, of whom there are an nth number here ... The situation is as follows, I will describe the chronology of events.
On October 20, 2008, I was in seventh heaven when I purchased a device that I had dreamed about from the very moment of its appearance - an “apple” phone, iPhone 3G . This device was purchased absolutely officially in the MTS company , the same one that “delivered what cannot stand” :)
And there was no my sincere joy of the limit, until the “vibro” function disappeared in an iPhone in a strange way. It was from this moment that my story of a campaign against MTS began.
So, on February 16, 2009, the iPhone was handed over for warranty repair / replacement to the MTS service center in connection with the broken “vibro” function. On March 18, 2009, MTS service employees refused to repair my iPhone, citing a crack near the ejection connector.
A few days later, I conducted an independent examination (at the MGBTE ), which established that there was no connection between the crack and the broken vibrating alert. Then the first application was filed with the court. In court, the lawyers of MTS insisted on a forensic examination, which was carried out in their proposed company CIES CJSC(Central Institute of Expertise, Standardization and Certification).
The result of this forensic examination was the following conclusion: “The vibrating alert stopped working due to dust entering through the crack near the connectors, the crack arose during operation.” And there is a photograph with a huge amount of dust.
Just in case, I’ll clarify that I didn’t notice the dust under the screen - and it should have been there first. I just can’t imagine that such an amount of dust could get through such a crack (a standard crack near a vibration alert).
Soon the next hearing. Everything goes to the point that I am found guilty.
Naturally, I consider it necessary to appeal, because:
1. The amount of dust seems to me to be
significantly exaggerated during the forensic examination by the specialists of CIES CJSC . It is intentionally done or not I can’t judge.
2. The crack near the vibration switch button is a common problem with Apple iPhone 3G devices, it occurs for many and, apparently, is not related to operational disruption (and I handled my iPhone very carefully).
3. It is not proven that the crack arose as a result of a malfunction.
MTS, of course, is fighting for this cause, because for them it will be a precedent. And I want to bring it to a fair end. But I feel that I cannot do without an intelligent lawyer.
Therefore, I appeal to the habro community to advise good lawyers who will be ready to take up this difficult matter, or simply give good advice, which, quite possibly, will be useful. I want to add that for me it has become a matter of principle. Too many nerves have been spent on all litigation. Thanks in advance to everyone ...
PS Moved to "Consumer Protection."
Updated December 9
Today, the situation is as follows. The vibrating alert is located on the opposite side of the housing from the contaminated area. Accordingly, the expert himself did not even look at the vibration call. In addition, the relationship between dust and breakage has not been described (proven).
Despite this, the court refused to call the expert for additional questions, refused to conduct an additional examination and closed the case, pleading guilty.
Now we are waiting for the case to be ready (filed) so that we can familiarize ourselves with it, and immediately after that I will file an appeal.
Updated December 10
Yesterday we went to court - we photographed all the pages of the case.
From interesting - here is a color photo of “accumulation of dust of dirt”:
After that, all the documents were taken to OZPP.
They promised to get acquainted and today decide whether they will take up the appeal.
I am writing a post in order to find help or get professional advice from a lawyer, of whom there are an nth number here ... The situation is as follows, I will describe the chronology of events.
On October 20, 2008, I was in seventh heaven when I purchased a device that I had dreamed about from the very moment of its appearance - an “apple” phone, iPhone 3G . This device was purchased absolutely officially in the MTS company , the same one that “delivered what cannot stand” :)
And there was no my sincere joy of the limit, until the “vibro” function disappeared in an iPhone in a strange way. It was from this moment that my story of a campaign against MTS began.
So, on February 16, 2009, the iPhone was handed over for warranty repair / replacement to the MTS service center in connection with the broken “vibro” function. On March 18, 2009, MTS service employees refused to repair my iPhone, citing a crack near the ejection connector.
A few days later, I conducted an independent examination (at the MGBTE ), which established that there was no connection between the crack and the broken vibrating alert. Then the first application was filed with the court. In court, the lawyers of MTS insisted on a forensic examination, which was carried out in their proposed company CIES CJSC(Central Institute of Expertise, Standardization and Certification).
The result of this forensic examination was the following conclusion: “The vibrating alert stopped working due to dust entering through the crack near the connectors, the crack arose during operation.” And there is a photograph with a huge amount of dust.
Just in case, I’ll clarify that I didn’t notice the dust under the screen - and it should have been there first. I just can’t imagine that such an amount of dust could get through such a crack (a standard crack near a vibration alert).
Soon the next hearing. Everything goes to the point that I am found guilty.
Naturally, I consider it necessary to appeal, because:
1. The amount of dust seems to me to be
significantly exaggerated during the forensic examination by the specialists of CIES CJSC . It is intentionally done or not I can’t judge.
2. The crack near the vibration switch button is a common problem with Apple iPhone 3G devices, it occurs for many and, apparently, is not related to operational disruption (and I handled my iPhone very carefully).
3. It is not proven that the crack arose as a result of a malfunction.
MTS, of course, is fighting for this cause, because for them it will be a precedent. And I want to bring it to a fair end. But I feel that I cannot do without an intelligent lawyer.
Therefore, I appeal to the habro community to advise good lawyers who will be ready to take up this difficult matter, or simply give good advice, which, quite possibly, will be useful. I want to add that for me it has become a matter of principle. Too many nerves have been spent on all litigation. Thanks in advance to everyone ...
PS Moved to "Consumer Protection."
Updated December 9
Today, the situation is as follows. The vibrating alert is located on the opposite side of the housing from the contaminated area. Accordingly, the expert himself did not even look at the vibration call. In addition, the relationship between dust and breakage has not been described (proven).
Despite this, the court refused to call the expert for additional questions, refused to conduct an additional examination and closed the case, pleading guilty.
Now we are waiting for the case to be ready (filed) so that we can familiarize ourselves with it, and immediately after that I will file an appeal.
Updated December 10
Yesterday we went to court - we photographed all the pages of the case.
From interesting - here is a color photo of “accumulation of dust of dirt”:
After that, all the documents were taken to OZPP.
They promised to get acquainted and today decide whether they will take up the appeal.