Carrier Am I able to sell my previous Verizon phone if I’m still making payments on it?

[clerkpalmer]

You also said "When you buys goods on credit you own the goods."

It isn't the same as purchasing on a CC! If it was purchased on a credit card, the device is paid off and STAYS unlocked. You are conflating two different scenarios. If someone defaults on a CC payment, they don't take back the goods.


The phone only stays unlocked if payments are made in the future -- so you put your trust in the hands of a complete stranger. The device isn't fully owned by the person yet, and the buyer cannot even stop the device from going down if payments default.

I don't understand how the iPhone could even be legally sold to someone else, so I totally agree with jagolden.

No they don’t take back the goods. Best Buy doesn’t repo the tv. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of consumer credit transactions. There is nothing wrong with selling a phone and continuing to make the payments provided you in fact make the payments. We’ve already established that Verizon unlocks the phones. It’s possible that Verizon could disable the phone for nonpayment but that’s a different issue altogether. A quick google search says that Verizon does not blacklist phones for nonpayment but feel free to research.

 

[davedvdy]

No the don’t take back the goods. That’s utterly ridiculous and false. Stop. Best Buy doesn’t repo the tv. Please. You both have a fundamental misunderstanding of consumer credit transactions.

You aren't getting it. They don't take back the goods, but They flag and RELOCK the device if payments default since it's through carrier financing NOT through general credit (eg. BB as you said). You keep claiming this is "consumer credit" and carrier financing is completely different than buying on general credit. That was my point.

The buyer cannot use the phone any longer if that happens. A thief could just sell the phone and stop making payments once the cash exchanges hands.

I never claimed BB can repo a TV, in fact I said that credit cards and general credit allow a person to keep the items, so you aren't making any sense with that. Carrier financing is different because they can control your device by locking and flagging it if payments stop on the device.

I understand perfectly well, I don't know who in their right mind would buy a device that could become useless if payments default.

 

[clerkpalmer]

They aren't getting it. They don't take back the goods, but They flag and RELOCK the device if payments default since it's through carrier financing.
The buyer cannot use the phone any longer if that happens. A thief could just sell the phone and stop making payments once the cash exchanges hands.

I never claimed BB can repo a TV, in fact I said that credit cards and general credit allow a person to keep the items, so you aren't making any sense with that. Carrier financing is different because they can control your device by locking and flagging it if payments stop on the device.

I understand perfectly well, I don't know who in their right mind would buy a device that could become useless if payments default.

Except the don’t blacklist and lock the phone for nonpayment. At least Dr Google says that Verizon doesn’t. So the the phone is unlocked and free for a sale. And even if they black list the phone for nonpayment the OP specifically said he was going to make the payments as would I. I have sold several phones that were subject to my ATT installment agreement. I make all my payments. No problems for anyone involved. This is the way.

 

[eyoungren]

I don't understand how the iPhone could even be legally sold to someone else, so I totally agree with jagolden.

I don't have a dog in this fight so either way it doesn't really matter to me.

But I do want to ask since you've brought the line I quote up. You do not understand how it can be legally sold to someone else. Can you cite a federal or state law that says you can't sell a phone under payments?

Because if you can't cite one, then the only issue here is a moral one. Even if you can, then where are the carrier police to prevent this? Are those guys funded?

As much as we may wish it, there is not always a law that backs up our morality.

 

[clerkpalmer]

Except the don’t blacklist and lock the phone for nonpayment. At least Dr Google says that Verizon doesn’t. So the the phone is unlocked and free for a sale. And even if they black list the phone for nonpayment the OP specifically said he was going to make the payments as would I. I have sold several phones that were subject to my ATT installment agreement. I make all my payments. No problems for anyone involved. This is the way.

We are talking about Verizon here but ATT has a different approach. They lock all phones to the account until paid for. So for ATT it actually cannot be sold. It used to be that they were locked to ATT but could be sold to any ATT user. Their new policy is probably the most consumer unfriendly on the market.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I don't have a dog in this fight so either way it doesn't really matter to me.

But I do want to ask since you've brought the line I quote up. You do not understand how it can be legally sold to someone else. Can you cite a federal or state law that says you can't sell a phone under payments?

Because if you can't cite one, then the only issue here is a moral one. Even if you can, then where are the carrier police to prevent this? Are those guys funded?

As much as we may wish it, there is not always a law that backs up our morality.

Why is it immoral? Genuine question. I sell my phone and I make my payments. Buyer gets a working phone. Now if I don’t make my payments and Verizon blocks the phone now the buyer has a claim against me since the phone doesn’t work. None of this has anything to do with whether I can sell the phone. The OP very clearly stated he/she intended to make payments. If the OP stated payments would not be made, then we would have something to talk about at least if the buyer is then at risk for a blocked device but that wasn’t the premise.

 

[davedvdy]

Except the don’t blacklist and lock the phone for nonpayment. At least Dr Google says that Verizon doesn’t

It does claim it can be flagged and they can lock the phone for nonpayment. Unless this has changed this is direct from a VZW Rep.

"If payments towards the device stopped and the account it was on was disconnected, the phone may be flagged for non-payment and then locked after that."

https://community.verizon.com/t5/Apple/Unlocking-policy-on-device-payment-agreements/td-p/1161523#:~:text=Now, to get a bit,-days, it is unlocked.

 

[eyoungren]

Why is it immoral? Genuine question. I sell my phone and I make my payments. Buyer gets a working phone. Now if I don’t make my payments and Verizon blocks the phone now the buyer has a claim against me since the phone doesn’t work. None of this has anything to do with whether I can sell the phone. The OP very clearly stated he/she intended to make payments. If the OP stated payments would not be made, then we would have something to talk about at least if the buyer is then at risk for a blocked device but that wasn’t the premise.

No, no no, no. I didn't say it was immoral or even that I believe it was immoral. But davedvdy seems to believe it is, as they do not understand why it's not illegal. So I asked if they could cite a law.

It's very simple. There is either a law against this or there is not. And if there is no law against it then the question davedvdy posed means (to me) they think there should be one.

And whatever anyone believes the reality is that there's not always a law that backs that up.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I don't have a dog in this fight so either way it doesn't really matter to me.

But I do want to ask since you've brought the line I quote up. You do not understand how it can be legally sold to someone else. Can you cite a federal or state law that says you can't sell a phone under payments?

Because if you can't cite one, then the only issue here is a moral one. Even if you can, then where are the carrier police to prevent this? Are those guys funded?

As much as we may wish it, there is not always a law that backs up our morality.

Why is it immoral? Genuine question. I sell my phone and I make my payments. Buyer gets a working phone. Now if I don’t make my payments and Verizon blocks the phone now the buyer has a claim against me since the phone doesn’t work. None of this has anything to do with whether I can sell the phone. The OP very clearly stated he/she intended to make payments. If the OP stated payments would not be made, then we would have something to talk about at least if the buyer is then at risk for a blocked device but that wasn’t the premise.

It does claim it can be flagged and they can lock the phone for nonpayment. Unless this has changed this is direct from a VZW Rep.

"If payments towards the device stopped and the account it was on was disconnected, the phone may be flagged for non-payment and then locked after that."

https://community.verizon.com/t5/Apple/Unlocking-policy-on-device-payment-agreements/td-p/1161523#:~:text=Now, to get a bit,-days, it is unlocked.

“May” be flagged. That’s pretty ambiguous and assumes the seller doesn’t pay. Most people pay their bills. If the seller is reputable it’s a non issue. Buy the seller not the goods.

 

[clerkpalmer]

No, no no, no. I didn't say it was immoral or even that I believe it was immoral. But davedvdy seems to believe it is, as they do not understand why it's not illegal. So I asked if they could cite a law.

It's very simple. There is either a law against this or there is not. And if there is no law against it then the question davedvdy posed means (to me) they think there should be one.

And whatever anyone believes the reality is that there's not always a law that backs that up.

Why should there be a law against selling your phone? You own it. It’s your property. You have to pay your bills but there’s no connection between the phone and your debt obligation to Verizon.

 

[eyoungren]

Why should there be a law against selling your phone? You own it. It’s your property. You have to pay your bills but there’s no connection between the phone and your debt obligation to Verizon.

I agree. But I'm asking davedvdy if they can cite one. I really don't think there is one. Otherwise, not selling a phone still on payments would be a thing. And davedvdy probably knows that. So the question they asked implies to me that they believe there should be one - because their moral code demands one.

But that isn't how things work.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I agree. But I'm asking davedvdy if they can cite one. I really don't think there is one. Otherwise, not selling a phone still on payments would be a thing. And davedvdy probably knows that. So the question they asked implies to me that they believe there should be one - because their moral code demands one.

But that isn't how things work.

Got it. Well we agree. The world has a lot bigger morality problems to solve than people selling their phones. Believe me the carriers know what they are doing. When they hand you the phone it’s yours.

 

[davedvdy]

I agree. But I'm asking davedvdy if they can cite one. I really don't think there is one. Otherwise, not selling a phone still on payments would be a thing. And davedvdy probably knows that. So the question they asked implies to me that they believe there should be one - because their moral code demands one.

But that isn't how things work.

I'm not claiming there is a law against it or demanding anything -- I just said "I don't see how that could be legal" since carrier financing isn't the same as general credit that clerkpalmer keeps citing -- they work differently. General consumer credit doesn't give the carrier control over a device.

I think the greater question is if the device would continue to work for the buyer if the seller stops making payments?

Wouldn't you feel you had the right to know if a phone wasn't fully paid off with some disclosure that the carrier had some level of control over it still?

I think if everything is disclosed up front though, I don't see how it would be unethical.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I'm not claiming there is a law against it or demanding anything -- I just said "I don't see how that could be legal" since carrier financing isn't the same as general credit that clerkpalmer keeps citing -- they work differently. General consumer credit doesn't give the carrier control over a device.

I think the greater question is if the device would continue to work for the buyer if the seller stops making payments?

Wouldn't you feel you had the right to know if a phone wasn't fully paid off with some disclosure that the carrier had some level of control over it still?

I think if everything is disclosed up front though, I don't see how it would be unethical.

The premise stated by the OP was that the final payments would be made. Then everyone piled on and discussed how terrible the OP would be to undertake such a horrible crime against humanity. We just need some levity. OP asked if the phone could be sold with 5 measly payments left. It is a giant nothingburger. As to your question it appears Verizon “may” but also “may not” blacklist the phone. So yes, buy at your own risk and do your diligence on your seller which is good advice for everything frankly

 

[Apple_Tiger]

Verizon won't unlock a phone that has not been paid in full.

I don't think so. My wife's 14 pro max was purchased directly from verizon and did the $1000 bill credit. So it was locked first 60 days, but after that it automatically unlocked and she can use it on a different network. it says no sim restrictions

 

[DDustiNN]

You can sell it. Verizon puts a 60 or 90 lock on the device (I don’t remember which), but after that it is completely unlocked and you are free to do whatever you want with it.

Edit: I am assuming you purchased the phone with a device payment plan…which is essentially an interest free loan/payment plan with promotional billing credits. If that is true you can sell your phone as soon as it is unlocked (60-90 days). Some commenters are assuming you are under “contract”. That could be true if you are on a very old legacy Verizon plan and that could be a problem until the device is fully paid off.

This sounds like the most accurate answer. Yes, it is the device payment plan, which I equated to a credit card earlier in the thread. I am not locked into any contract. I think a lot of people are still stuck in the old ways of thinking.

 

[dotatoc]

You also said "When you buys goods on credit you own the goods."

It isn't the same as purchasing on a CC! If it was purchased on a credit card, the device is paid off and STAYS unlocked. You are conflating two different scenarios. If someone defaults on a CC payment, they don't take back the goods.


The phone only stays unlocked if payments are made in the future -- so you put your trust in the hands of a complete stranger. The device isn't fully owned by the person yet, and the buyer cannot even stop the device from going down if payments default.

I don't understand how the iPhone could even be legally sold to someone else, so I totally agree with jagolden.

Edit - sorry, wrong reply to wrong poster.

 

[DDustiNN]

It is not the same as a credit card. As to the automobile, that’s a whole different story as they are regulated (if not bought outright) in most countries. You need the Title (proof of ownership) to the car to be able to sell it. If it was purchased on a loan, again, you don’t really own it until you’ve paid off the loan and get that title.

What the Device Payment Plan “sounds” like a credit card “”to you”, has no bearing on what it actually means. Don’t you know anything about basic purchase contracts?

In this case you are wrong, unfortunately, and I feel bad for you. But I’m done participating in a round-about conversation. You seem to simply be looking for some justification to perform a potentially illegal, or at least, morally wrong action.

I’m simply asking a question. There’s no need to get so worked up and resort to insults. Either provide accurate answers (not just what you think the answers are) or don’t respond at all.

 

[clerkpalmer]

I’m simply asking a question. There’s no need to get so worked up and resort to insults. Either provide accurate answers (not just what you think the answers are) or don’t respond at all.

He didn’t have any answers.

 

[laptech]

Wipe the iphone, put it back to factory default then sell it and see who was right, those telling you not to do it and pay off the last installments or those telling you to sell it because you or the buyer will not have any problems. Then come back here and tell who was right.

 

[DDustiNN]

That would defeat the entire purpose of me asking the question.

 

[laptech]

That would defeat the entire purpose of me asking the question.

I know but the problem is there is no clear consensus on what you should do, some say sell it others say don't with seeing out the last of the installments.

Flip a coin, heads you sell, tails you don't

 

[DDustiNN]

I know but the problem is there is no clear consensus on what you should do, some say sell it others say don't with seeing out the last of the installments.

Flip a coin, heads you sell, tails you don't

Yep, too many keep responding with their emotions and assumptions rather than facts. It’s a mess.

The phone says it’s unlocked when I go into the settings. IMEI check online comes back clean. What else is left?

 

[KeepCalmPeople]

If you sell it with outstanding monthly payments still due to the carrier, will you tell the potential buyer so that they can make an informed decision? That is the question in my mind.

I bought a used iPhone X way back on eBay - it worked fine for almost a year on T-Mobile, then I finally reinstalled iOS on it. I could no longer activate it after that. It turns out the phone had outstanding payments due on Sprint, which the seller did not disclose. I traded it in to Apple for an 11 Pro; lost about $300 on it.

 

[eyoungren]

If you sell it with outstanding monthly payments still due to the carrier, will you tell the potential buyer so that they can make an informed decision? That is the question in my mind.

I bought a used iPhone X way back on eBay - it worked fine for almost a year on T-Mobile, then I finally reinstalled iOS on it. I could no longer activate it after that. It turns out the phone had outstanding payments due on Sprint, which the seller did not disclose. I traded it in to Apple for an 11 Pro; lost about $300 on it.

I believe OP has already stated at least once that they would inform the buyer.