Reply With QuoteWhat does that mean sorry?Originally Posted by Tilly
nothing thay rolex can
nothing thay rolex can
What does that mean sorry?nothing thay rolex can
If its a Rolex dealer thay can hold cards and box if they whant to.would you whant a car new with all the protection of wax and plastic seat covers.after we r looking to get a watch
.....okIf its a Rolex dealer thay can hold cards and box if they whant to.would you whant a car new with all the protection of wax and plastic seat covers.after we r looking to get a watch
You are buying a new Rolex you still get guarantee but no card like I said it's a watch however you will get card after a year not a big deal.if people don't like it thay have a choice.lets hope it's stop flipping.and maybe prices will get back to normal for a used RolexIf its a Rolex dealer thay can hold cards and box if they whant to.would you whant a car new with all the protection of wax and plastic seat covers.after we r looking to get a watch
I have seen a lot of bluster and talk but yet to hear if anyone has successfully argued the point with an AD and won
And this practice affects me as much as some and more than the majority
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I bought a Datejust 36mm a few weeks back, got everything.
Bought a BLNR today, warranty card withheld... couldn’t care less, got a nice watch at retail.👍
I think Haywood Milton has on quite a few occassions informed us its perfectly legit for ADs to do this. Since he is in the trade im sure he knows his stuff quite well.
Appears to be a case of take it or leave it regarding the AD holding onto the card. Would not bother me in the slightest.
People say it wont make a difference but it clearly hits a nerve or two on here, hence maybe it does have some effect even if minimal
Last edited by kultschar; 23rd September 2018 at 17:23.
Holding onto the Warranty card for 12-months is one thing, not allowing you to sell the watch for 12-months and only allowing you to sell it back to the AD for a further 24-months is exploring an all-new level of consumer insanity!
Why not just say that you pay your AD in full up front and they then keep the watch in their safe for 36-months - just to be sure that you don't try to do anything untoward with your property?
Oops, sorry- somewhere out there an AD has just read this suggestion and will be putting into effect on Monday :)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Godds offered for sale in shops are known in law as "invitation to treat". The customer makes an offer when he offers to buy. The retailer then decides whether or not to accept the offer. He is in no way obliged to accept so if a Rolex customer insists on taking the warranty card and removing stickers himself, the the retailer is entitled to refuse to sell. I would expect the retailer to advise the customer early in the transaction what his intentions are, but that is only good manners and not a legal necessity.
Sorry if this has been covered earlier in this thread but I didn't read from the start.
That's not the correct story. The contract states that you have to give the AD "1st refusal" in the event that you sell after 12 months and before 36 months. I have a copy of this contract and a Rolex Pepsi...
If the AD can't match market value,then they've broken the contract. In effect, it's meaningless.
No INSTRUCTIONS, correct. The letter to AD's from Rolex is ADVISORY.
If Rolex supplies tags and cards as part of the retail package, that is what the consumer expects to buy.
It’s irrelevant whether a buyer is happy with them not being supplied: they were intended by Rolex to be included.
What next? No box?
Given the rate at which retailers are going to the wall it’s a rash thing to accept.
Retailers can choose to sell to you or not, accept their conditions or they will sell to the next man.
The warranty card issue is not an issue if you want to keep the watch.
The warranty card issue is a huge issue if you want to flip the watch.
Looks like the policy is working.
Seems like a fair summary to me.
I was only referring to the conditions as stated by nairn1980 above.
I believe that the real problem is that Rolex appear to have issued an advisory note to their AD network to help reduce secondary market profiteering.
The individual AD's are then being left to interpret this advice and come up with their own solutions which are all unique - but following a common guiding principle.
All of which seems rather over the top given that the Great Rolex Famine only appears to be affecting specific parts of the World thereby creating increased demand for the product - which in turn fuels the secondary market.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that actually correct? If the customer is expecting to receive a warranty card, then that's part of the transaction. We all know it's not what happened that's important but what you can prove happened, so let's say you can prove you were not informed the card would be retained. The only "rights" would seem to be money refunded, no? For example, in the meantime the AD might have "lost" the card, and they can't give you a card they don't have, so they presumably would be obliged to take the watch back? It's a minefield isn't it?
Why is it? Clearly people are quite prepared to purchase the watch new without the warranty card, so why wouldn't someone buying one used be prepared to?
It's not stopping people listing brand new watches (at often eye-watering premiums) on eBay. Whether they sell, and at what prices, I don't know but shameless listing without cards is very common.
Anyone who buys a Rolex to flip is a bit of a toe rag to say the least and I certainly would not trust them in any shape or form.
They say in the adverts that they will pass the papers on in twelves months time but only a total mug would believe that.
They will take the money and just move on and forget that you even exist.
The best course of action is for Rolex to adjust the RRP to what the market will stand and the problem will sort itself out.
Most decent Rolex owners just buy a watch and wear it for years and Rolex should do everything in their power to promote that ethos.
So yes, make life difficult for flippers.
Wow, very strong statements. I must be one of the “mugs” you talk about as I’ve bought a watch recently and had the paperwork held back for 12 months. I have no reason to suspect the AD won’t pass this on to me in 12 months. In actual fact I queried what would happen if they lost them as I was under the impression Rolex wouldn’t produce any further paperwork. Well it seems that paperwork is now being lost for one reason or another due to dealers holding onto the warranty for 6/12 months and the AD has confirmed it is possible for them to request new paperwork if they are the ones to lose them. I do recall a thread recently where there was proof of this. Anyhow, your second point about being a toe rag for flipping is somewhat harsh. If I had a call today regarding a Pepsi gmt at list price and somebody offered me £5k over list price, I can honestly say I’d more than likely take it. I don’t have, and doubt for the future, the earning capacity of £5k a day. I put my name down on a list for a Patek 5711 white dial in 2016 thinking it wouldn’t come up and 6 months later I had the call. This was before the current madness. I was at the bottom of the list. All the others above me refused the watch as the AD had to remove the watch from its protective packaging. I wonder why the people above me on the list wouldn’t accept that? Anyhow, I asked if I could just snip a corner off and they agreed. If I recall it was circa £19k. I didn’t have £19k to pump into a watch at the time but maxed out the credit card. Unashamedly I sold it to watchfinder for about £1800 profit and took the kids to Disney at Christmas. If that makes me a toerag then il take that all day long. Just remember, nobody above me on the list wanted the watch as they thought it had to be removed from its packaging etc, what difference would that of made to a true collector? The cynic in me believes they never had the balls to buy it without the fear they couldn’t re sell it. Unfortunately it is what it is. We all moan about re sellers and not getting the watches we want but if they were freely available the residuals would be terrible and for myself at least I like the fact I can buy a Rolex (if bought well) and the watch will hold its value or possible even go up. If people say they don’t care about residuals I’d say your very few and far between...
That is exactly my case and I will report back once it has gone in front of a judge. Interestingly, I have bought a AAAA replica from China to put in front of the judge. Let him make the call between the copy and the real watch without the Guarantee Card/Certificate of Authenticity. I need to prove devaluation of my purchase, without my agreement which my claim is based on.
You haven't got a legal case...don't waste your time and money.
The sure answer is not to part with a penny until you and the dealer have agreed on precisely the terms of the transaction. That is sensible commercial practice.
Is it legal to import counterfeit goods into the UK? It's illegal to sell them.
EDIT: Can't find a definitive answer but I suspect the answer might be yes. It does appear that Customs can seize fake items.
In any event, I'm not sure that even the great Perry Mason would have opened his case saying "Look at this counterfeit fake which I imported into the UK ...". How does that help your case?
Last edited by David_D; 27th September 2018 at 14:51.
Just a further update, I have gone through all the necessary and long winded steps that needs to be taken, before one can go to court. All the documents have gone through to a firm of lawyers that specialise on such litigation. Based on their best advice, there is a legal case with a greater than 50% chance of success. So, I guess here we go.
BTW, since this thread was started, some of the AD's are sending out a "confirmation" of the conditional sale to you. Could be coincidence !
I admire your tenacity but fear you are losing the plot. Buying fakes to put in front of a judge. I am pretty sure that they will refuse to get involved with theatrics like that. It is real life not a film set. If you are getting legal advice to engage in nonsense like this you need to have a radical rethink on what you are paying for.
I have two of these watches and have both guarantee cards now. I have worn one of them since the day I got it and really enjoyed it. Not having the warranty card for six months did not dampen my enthusiasm for the watch. It’s a shame you can’t just enjoy the watch and crack on with life. Take a look around and have a think on whether the time and money you are putting into this couldn’t be better served elsewhere.
X2
Rolex don't instruct shops to keep the cards, they simply approve of those who do. No court would even. consider this...not least because there is no financial loss. The guarantee is in operation, as normal. You haven't lost any rights.
Whether it prevents flipping, who knows.
Arguably there is a potential financial loss resulting from the restrictions imposed on a purchaser being unable to resell their property. Given that this would certainly appear to be what is intended by the retention of the Warranty Cards it would be hard to argue that there was no impact on the purchaser by the AD retaining them.
However, since the purchase contract is always with the AD I believe that the issue would be proving that Rolex formally instructed them to retain the Warranty Cards causing this restriction.
Either way I do believe that anyone who supports free markets should be supporting this case.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by adg31; 19th October 2018 at 08:10.
This has been said before but the AD I purchased my BLNR from recently said that it was the retail chain's decision to withold warranty cards for 12months and to remove stickers. This particular retail chain is one of the largest in the UK and thus a lot of hot Rolex models that they supply find their way to the grey market (watchfinder etc). Rolex take a dim view of this and have robustly suggested that retailers wishing to continue a relationship with Rolex should take reasonable steps to prevent this. The AD is protecting it's business relationship with the brand.
No retailer has responsibility for the subsequent prices of, now, used goods. Indeed, the madness of such a claim is that all of these watches actually rise in value once sold by the retailer. The claim would have to be that you might have made even more ....try that with a court. You would be seen as a greedy speculator. There will never be a court case, no decent lawyer would recommend such a course.
The only 'damage' is in limiting speculators , touts, seeking unearned income. Retailers have every right to impose conditions of sale, we have every right to reject them and walk away.
I agree that retailers do have the right to impose conditions of sale but it seems from threads like this that they have in many cases not notified the customer of these prior to sale.
This said, if they are not trying to actively manipulate the free market pricing and availability of items why would they need to be retaining the Warranty Cards in the first instance?
Unfortunately I don't think it's a question of morality - and the behaviour of some flippers may not be what we approve of - but they could argue that they are no more reprehensible than any other commodity trader out there who is able to operate without suppliers imposing conditions which could limit their ability to trade.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by adg31; 19th October 2018 at 09:22.
Imagine the main reason they are retaining the cards is so that 5 mins later after sale their watch is not at Watchfinder / eBay with the card on display showing the source and getting them into trouble with Rolex.
Exactly this. I’m sure on the quiet Rolex and some of their AD network are very happy with the situation. After all it removes the discount conversation from any transaction and probably filters down to the less desirable models too. More profit for the dealer potentially less watches in the grey market.
Some of the ADs knowingly contributed to the grey market by repeatedly selling to the same individual. I don’t recall if it was here, in this thread or TRF but there was a post saying the AD had sold the last three, might’ve been five, Submariner Hulks to the same bloke. What did they expect to happen to most of them?
Personally I agree with the principle that once I’ve purchased something it’s up to me what I do with it.
That said it is entirely up to the retailer who he sells something to.
Some Ferrari Dealers have the same ethics. Limited number of vehicles, build your relationship with the Dealer, they’ll eventually offer you the best cars, they’ll upsell as much as possible. You have to offer it back to them when you want to change. You get the next one. Step outside of those parameters and you’ll not get offered another one. Simple as that.
Is this very different to the situation with ticket touts? They buy up tickets, then sell them at a profit. Promoters take increasingly harsh measures to stop this...such as invalidating tickets not bought directly by the holder. You could call this restricting the rights of the tout, imposing conditions which damage the value of his legally bought goods (the tickets.) But no tout would stand a chance in court.
By the same token is it so very different from City traders making six figure salaries and becoming pillars of the establishment or a developer buying a property and selling it on at a profit.
We may not like it but the whole of the capitalist system relies on someone identifying an opportunity to buy something and then sell it on to someone else at a higher price if they are happy to pay the premium.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Now that professionals are involved, they will be handling the process and not me as a novice.
It is not six months, it is twelve :-) if it was 6 months, there would be no point in contesting it, as the whole process to legal action will take over 6 months.
The point is , I was not told of this policy, if I was I would have walked out. The AD was not that important to me, I have since bought a Yachtmaster from another AD who seems to be a lot more professional in their approach.
I have subsequently ordered 3 more watches from him, on one they established a conditional sale on the other two which are DJ's they gave me a deal as they are 2017 models.
Indeed. Or like those who buy up properties with the sole purpose of being able to sell once the value of said property had gone up.
ADs can impose whatever conditions of sale they so chose, I can’t see any court in the land concluding any different.
The whole business model of restricting supply is clearly working for Rolex as the frenzy to get hold of once continues to escalate. And the fact it gets discussed more than any other topic on here suggests as a marketing strategy it’s clearly working...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No it’s an infringement of the written T&C’s which forms the contract between you, the original purchaser and the venue / promoter. The difference here is that it is clearly stated that the ticket is covered by a number of terms and selling on tickets (touting) is illegal under section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1984.
If I were an AD I might consider offering
watch without papers = mrrp
watch with all paperwork = mrrp +£1500.00
Everyone's happy, almost
Out of interest what is the actual claim they give a 50% chance of success on?
It seems to me that you still have the guarantee etc, you merely don't have the card to evidence it.
So it's likely that the claim is for financial loss and to do so you need to have a watch that is worth less than you paid for it and have evidence to show how much of that fall in value is down to the papers being withheld. There is then the small matter that you haven't actually realised that loss by trying to sell and finding that you can neither reclaim the papers or sell at the level you would have achieved.
I'm genuinely interested, as I'm struggling to see what they think there is a 50% chance of succeeding on.
Certainly anyone that has a watch that is worth more than they paid for it must surely be dead in the water. It's a binary thing whereby if the argument is that you did not know about the policy until after the transaction concluded (which is a narrow argument in itself) you would either have walked had you known the policy (which you have confirmed you would have done) or presumably been prepared to accept that the value of the item may have a short term impairment whilst the papers were held. I simply can't see that anyone holding a watch that is worth more than the amount paid has any grounds to even contemplate a viable claim unless I'm missing something as what is the loss in owning something that is still worth more than they paid for it??
Only problem being that if a Rolex AD sold a watch at rrp + £1500, he would immediately lose his franchise.
FWIW I bought a fully stickered and warranty carded 114060 from an AD in West London yesterday. I am a good customer of theirs though
I hope none of their staff are members on here ;)
I agree entirely - demonstrating a ‘loss’ of value is surely impossible on a watch that could still be sold for more than RRP even without the warranty card?!
I’m not sure ‘I can’t make as much immediate profit as I’d like’ will represent a valid claim in court....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For only getting RRP + £1500 instead of RRP + PM sale?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Lets leave that one until the case is over. As promised I will share every time a legal step is over.
Just pay for the watch and agree their conditions of sale. Before you pack everything away ask for one last look at the warranty card then pop it in the bag and walk out...
In that case he could donate the surcharge to charity whilst acknowledging the Rolex brand, maybe?
Posting Permissions