
This is poppycock. If you do something that damages the phone, then you voided (not "avoid") the warranty because something you did damaged the phone. If you do something that does not damage the phone, then you do not void the warranty. The logical implication of the claim is that if you jailbreak the phone, you will damage it. This is poppycock.
New Oxford American Dictionary He was actually, technically, correct. When talking about a warranty, you "avoid" the warranty when you violate it. It means, as the second definition clearly states, that you have voided the contract (which a warranty is, as discussed earlier in the thread).avoid |əˈvɔɪd|
verb [ trans. ]
1 keep away from or stop oneself from doing (something) : avoid excessive exposure to the sun | the kind of place that Robyn would normally have avoided like the plague.
• contrive not to meet (someone) : boys lined up to meet Gloria, but avoided her bossy sister.
• (of a person or a route) not go to or through (a place) : this route avoids downtown Boston.
• prevent from happening : make the necessary adjustments to avoid an accident.
2 Law repudiate, nullify, or render void (a decree or contract).
-
No, they are simply facts. Please go read a bit then come back. If you have some actual information to 'refute' what I said, feel free.
Agreed.

Clearly this thread is in need of an attorney who specializes in these matters to weigh in. Both sides are stating their cases with a certainty that is most likely based on their world view rather than specific case law. One or the other side may be right, or more likely, the whole thing is uncertain, with cases going every which way depending on specifics and jurisdiction. Please, lawyers, a lil' help for our armchair attorneys?
You've already had a law student weigh in in this thread. There are a number of property-related counts on which successful charges could be brought and a number more that could be used to instill the fear of God in these childish individuals. You don't need an attorney who specializes in these matters, it's a pretty straightforward case of destruction of property (of which vandalism is a type) and trespassing due to their exceeding their license to use the property (their license, quite obviously, did not include a 'right' to destroy property).
See the second definition of "avoid", supra.








