[T-Mobile LG G2x] tombaker1:
Oh this is long but WTF I am gonna hit send

Well you filed on 7-18, so their answer should be in soon, they have 30 days if memory serves.

1.	The lawsuit says you will testify that you would have never bought the phone IF you knew about the screen. Yet but you saw the screen instantly when you powered on the phone. If you complaint it truthful, why did you not return the phone or demand the phone be replaced immediately.

2.	You waited 40 days before you initiated a telephone return, well past the 30 days you agreed to. A new software update would never fix the screen. There are individuals that have returned their phones 3-8 times just trying to find a perfect screen. It seems you lawsuit wants to pull those folks in.

3.	The LCD blocks the blacklight to create black, light leakage is well understood, and a common criteria in laptop evaluations, is part of the game. Want zero bleed, go with the super inky Super Amoled +, which as super fast response times to boot. Nevertheless you lawsuit claims all G2x suffer this fatal flaw.

Here is a picture from someone who was returning their G2x for bleeding. In dark lighting even, do you see it? Where is it? Regardless this is going back to T-Mobile for replacement, the next one won't look as bad as that, oh wait it does....rinse and repeat and we got 8 times. Where is it?

2. You waited until the 30 days expired before you gained a replacement device. It was over 40 days before you had a replacement in hand. You could have mitigated and removed any damage by not keeping the phone. Instead you began rooting the phone, exchanging ROMs. You had to remove all traces of that when you returned the phone, as you were clearly using the phone differently that the intended purpose as sold. A new software update would never fix the screen. Claiming you were waiting for a software update for the hardware issue that if known, would make you not buy the phone in the first place, it just does not stand up. Not credible the screen issue was as significant as your complaint testifies to.

Isn’t rooting a means to change the designed use of the phone. How is LG supposed to warranty a product when its experimented on by the end-user. What about using rooting to overclock the CPUs, if you damage your phone rooting it to do that is the warranty still in effect?

3. You have explained your two encounters with T-Mobile, confusing me perhaps, but you said that the replacement phone, rebooted while it was automatically restoring applications via marketplace. To do that it needs Google, Google also restores previous phone setting, wifi passwords, and what not. If you were restoring from Marketplace, the apps were from your previous phone you have garbage in, garbage out.

4. You lawsuit says that T-Mobile did not replace your phone, or attempt to repair, or honor the warranty. That is a huge part of the claim. But T-Mobile has been replacing phones left and right, why they continued to do so for the screen is amazing, they should have just said, pick a different new phone. But they didn't, they just kept on replacing the phones. Your lawsuit, for its class action purposes needs to have the condition that T-Mobile as administrator of the LG warranties, failed to honor those guarantees. You don't have that.

You have a EVO 3D now, with a custom ROM, defend the phone against any defects that other EVO 3D users experience. You don't use T-Mobile as your carrier. You are not suing T-Mobile because you agreed to arbitrations and other mechanisms. I believe you need to bring in all parties which are party to the claims you have, which would be T-Mobile and Google also.

In this very thread you have other people saying this phone reboots all the time, except when I use it as a stock phone. Everyone with the problems always had the full right to walk away from this new model.

All you had to do was return the phone during 30 days.

Heck if you wanted you had a small claims case. ( you would have lost there too) but instead you want to be the emblem of all G2x users. Most users did not invalidate there warranty, or if they did it, and broke the phone, they would be happy with a simple replacement, and NOT doing a lawsuit.

But you claim you were just waiting for the fixes, but that ROM fix, was never going to fix the screen, the screen which you said would have made you never buy the phone, but you did know about it, and you did keep it, and you did void the warranty by rooting and replacing the ROMs, but they still gave you a replacement, so sue them? It a bit confusing.

Learn about the legal concept of unclean hands. You did not return in 30 day window, software could never fix screen, you rooted your phone, causing unknown damage, returned that phone, go the new phone, used it for mere hours, and then went about changing carriers. You stopped giving LG the ability to fix or remedy the phone with just a single replacement. Is it fair for you to modify you phone and expect that the warranty did not support your modified device, or to attempt to restore you old phone setting onto the replacement phone, without informing them the original phone was being used with a rooted ROM. On the application marketplace was restoring, how many were only for rooted phones. How was the staff of T-Mobile supposed to help you when you did not explain the problems of the phone that was rooted. The argument that you thought you had some issues before rooting is meaningless as you never gave the defendant the ability to replace the phone, you only gave the defendant the ability to replace after the rooting. Lastly you only sought out LG because of your actions of waiting too long with T-Mobile to get an exchange for a different phone. Those actions caused everything else to flow.

------------------------------

rooting, not telling LG your return phone had been rooted, expecting LG to replace phones that are excluded by their warranty agreement, intentionally not giving LG time to remedy, as you wanted a difference carrier anyway.

EQUALS

unclean hands n. a legal doctrine which is a defense to a complaint, which states that a party who is asking for a judgment cannot have the help of the court if he/she has done anything unethical/improper in relation to the subject of the lawsuit. Thus, if a defendant can show the plaintiff had "unclean hands," the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed or the plaintiff will be denied judgment. Unclean hands is a common "affirmative defense" pleaded by defendants, which must be proved by the defendant.

Example: Hank Hardnose sues Grace Goodenough for breach of contract for failure to pay the full amount for construction of an addition to her house which she admits. The court denies any relief to Hardnose when Goodenough proves that Hardnose had shown her faked estimates from subcontractors to justify his original bid to Goodenough.