Sr. Management
Mainland,#2UPDATE Employee
Thu, February 12, 2004
In response to these slanderous remarks, I would like to inform the readers of this site that there is more to the story than Grace has led on. A phone was sent to our company with a smashed LCD, as described by the customer. In compliance with our Express Repair Service Contract, which was signed by the Vice President of this company, our agreement is to perform targeted repairs. As such, the phone was repaired and returned as requested. It was then returned to us due to a signal / service issue. This issue was not described, nor were we asked to inspect or repair this problem when the phone arrived the first time. We repaired the new problem and again returned the phone. As I'm sure you are aware, things don't always run flawlessly in the telecommunications industry. Unfortunately, the phone was returned to us a third time, at which point it was determined to be beyond economical repair. The customer was informed and a credit for the full amount of the repair plus shipping, (which we do not usually refund, but did so for the inconvenience experienced by the customer), was issued on 9/10/03, and our check # 10751 was deposited by the customer on 9/16/03. This company obviously did not follow up on their own matter. Had they done so, I think they would be embarrassed and ashamed that this clerk took it upon herself to post such a deceptive and misleading report. We are currently perusing this situation from a legal standpoint. VIASTAR Technologies, Inc.
Grace
Ellenville,#3Author of original report
Thu, February 12, 2004
To update: Viastar did eventually send a refund check for the first phone. The second phone is still unrepaired and is laying in my Dead Phone Box, and we have not been refunded the shipping charges and bench fees involved with that phone.