The reader's story started out pretty much the same as many we've heard. The display on his Sony Vaio SZ Series laptop failed shortly before his one-year warranty was to expire. Sony initially promised to service the computer under warranty, but then the Sony Customer Satisfaction Center informed him the screen was "physically damaged" and was therefore not covered. After months of wrangling, Sony returned the useless system to him unrepaired.

Certain that he had not done anything that should have damaged the screen, the reader refused to leave it at that. He also had a very strong suspicion about what had actually caused the LCD to crack. "A slight warping in a bottom plastic vent piece on our laptop is located below the palm rest area where at least some of the notorious Sony battery fires occurred," the reader wrote. "When the laptop is closed the area of the LCD screen that nearly contacts that hot palm rest area is where the internal but obvious LCD crack appears. Long story short, I suspect the batteries that DON'T cause a fire but DO cause cracked LCD screens are still out there. Desperate to halt its widening $250 million recall, Sony decided it had to draw the line somewhere. One of the recalled batteries is number VGP-BPS2B -- my battery is number VGP-BPS2C."

The reader ultimately decided to file an action in small claims court against Sony for $1,800, the original price he'd paid for the computer two years ago. In his complaint, the reader noted that Sony had advertised his Vaio model as having "a durable contemporary styled carbon fiber casing" and "razor-thin LCD panel" that made it "ideal for life on the road" - a representation he had relied on in making his purchase decision. With no external signs that the laptop had suffered any abuse beyond normal wear and tear, the reader argued that, in denying his warranty claim, Sony had ignored its responsibility under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Uniform Commercial Code.

I must admit that when the reader first described his case to me, I didn't think his chances would be very good if Sony showed up to fight, which they showed every sign of doing. After all, while Sony couldn't prove he was responsible for damaging the screen, he couldn't prove he wasn't. And vendors often have a number of tricks up their sleeves such as mandatory arbitration clauses in their sneakwrap terms they can trot out in these cases. And the reader had discovered that his state is one that could allow Sony to appeal for a trial de novo if it lost the small claims action, requiring him to get a lawyer or drop the case.

But the reader felt confident that he had a good case, particularly with the circumstantial evidence his research on the Internet had uncovered of others suffering similar problems with Sony laptops and Sony batteries. And perhaps Sony thought so too. "In this matter, Sony elected to settle the claim and we negotiated a very favorable settlement, the terms of which we agreed to keep confidential," the reader wrote back when I asked him what had happened with his case. "I think it is simply that once again, a huge company [Sony] doesn't want to mess around with a tiny, tiny situation of a small claims court case [mine] so, it settles the dispute. Fighting it would have been cost-prohibitive for them."

The reader is satisfied that, even though it was settled out of court, his small claims case was worth doing. "Sony's customer service had said a cracked LCD isn't covered under its warranty. I was looking forward to having my 'day in court' after spending a day in a local library to prepare, so I'm sorry to say we never did resolve that issue. But, yes, I am very satisfied. There is a new and better laptop on my desk and Sony wrote in a final letter to me: 'Customer Service is very important to Sony, and we appreciate you bringing this matter to our attention.'"

If you've found a good way to get a manufacturer to honor its warranty, bring the matter to our attention. Post your comments below or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.