Rolex AD keeping guarantee card

[blackal]

No point in alluding to a precedence in law if no direction towards it - as how does someone planning or carrying out a similar prosecution - know of its existence.

Smacks of ‘look how clever I am’ rather than being informative.

[Haywood_Milton]

Yes, it was a civil action
yes to trading standards
yes to ADR ! (you have to)
Rolex are distributors, they did not hold back anything. The case was always against the AD's practice.
on the last one, go and find it , because it mentions the AD and I am not prepared to disclose it.

Am I holding something back, yes.
Are there AD's on this board masquerading as enthusiasts/customers, yes ! . . .

Right along I said, I will report back, which I have done.
I guess no more discussions on Rolex AD's withholding Guarantee Card/Certificate of Authentication.
Case closed, time to move on.

I don't understand why you would not just provide more specific facts, if these events happened. As a result, some will doubt that they really did.

The protocol as I understand it is that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) may be pursued before civil action, but you certainly don't have to.

Did any civil action get as far as a trial or was there a settlement before that point? What was the case number and at which court?

How about a scan of any settlement correspondence or the judgement, with names blanked out if you like?

[Raffe]

(...) The case was always against the AD's practice.
on the last one, go and find it , because it mentions the AD and I am not prepared to disclose it. (...)

You were prepared to take them to court but now you wouldn't disclose it because it mentions their name? Yeah sure.

[haberdashery]

No point in alluding to a precedence in law if no direction towards it - as how does someone planning or carrying out a similar prosecution - know of its existence.

Smacks of ‘look how clever I am’ rather than being informative.

Agreed.

W0rrybeads says “ Am I holding something back, yes.
Are there AD's on this board masquerading as enthusiasts/customers, yes ! . . .”

Surely all the ADs know who he is at this point anyway as I doubt trading standards took the complainant’s name as “w0rrybeads”.

If the above is true then I’d be impressed with your tenacity. Just can’t understand all the smoke and mirrors tbh.

[Lampoc]

This might go some way to explain it

https://youtu.be/xlrcEEIhyis

That's John McManus's channel so I'd take anything he says with a bucket of salt.

[TAFKARM]

There is at least one Rolex AD I know, or at least their employee, on this forum. Why would they not be?

[RAJEN]

If it really happened as you want us to believe it, there is no need to hide the name of the AD.
If the information is in the public domain, no need to hide the information.
BTW, this is not a Rolex discussion board.

[wileeeeeey]

Am I holding something back, yes.



Case closed, time to move on.

No, not closed. You've spoken now, so may as well continue. You've so far said f all. Quite annoying.

[Griswold]

That's John McManus's channel so I'd take anything he says with a bucket of salt.

Why?

[Plastic_Magpie]

If, as I suspect, that this case was heard in the County Court, decisions made create no precedent and are therefore virtually irrelevant to any susbsequent actions and do not require a trader to modify his/her terms. Any further similar cases would be heard afresh.

[Lampoc]

Why?

Google "McManus Watches" and all will be very clear.

[W0rrybeads]

If it really happened as you want us to believe it, there is no need to hide the name of the AD.
If the information is in the public domain, no need to hide the information.
BTW, this is not a Rolex discussion board.

Really don't care what you believe, it is done. If in doubt and can be bothered call Rolex .
Heading is Rolex AD keeping Guarantee card.

[MartynJC (UK)]

Then why all the fuss over retaining cards.

Good question Mike! Life would be a lot simpler without all this fuss. As said - something about a 'full set' perhaps.

(
I have had a watch fixed under warranty without presenting the card at Rolex St James - they were able to look up the watch up on their database and proceeded appropriately, as it was still in warranty - as it was 2nd hand they updated the owner details to my name as well. This seems to contravene what is stated on the Rolex website - but I am just relaying my personal experience.

I also had to get by CHNR regulated under warranty - and had just a photocopy of the warranty card from the AD - as the AD kept it. Again - no problems - it was looked up / checked in / regulated and returned - no issues
)

[Haywood_Milton]

I don't understand why you would not just provide more specific facts, if these events happened. As a result, some will doubt that they really did.

The protocol as I understand it is that ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) may be pursued before civil action, but you certainly don't have to.

Did any civil action get as far as a trial or was there a settlement before that point? What was the case number and at which court?

How about a scan of any settlement correspondence or the judgement, with names blanked out if you like?

Just in case you missed the above.......

Many seem to think your responses evasive, explicable only if they were written by some sort of fantasist. Why not prove them wrong and give the specifics?

It should be easy for you.

[Alansmithee]

Yet another problem that can be solved with .... [drumroll] .... blockchain!

Joking aside - I came across a good paper in the middle of the year that was about blockchain for watch warranty - one company has put it into practice:

https://www.fhs.swiss/eng/2019_10_31...vre-Leuba.html