Haven't we already seen a letter scanned onto here in one thread which says that this is Rolex UK's policy and that they are recommending to UK ADs that they retain the card for 12 months.
Therefore - if we accept the letter as genuine - then we know this is not simply/only an AD policy (sorry I don't have link to hand but perhaps someone can locate and paste?). Why then do we keep going over old ground about whether it's "rogue" ADs?
What we DON'T know is if this is Rolex UK or Rolex SA (Group) policy - I'd be very interested to know if anyone got any evidence of this?
taz - can you please confirm if only the watch needed to be present (on anyone's wrist), or if it had to be the original owner? Not quite clear from reading your subsequent posts.
I would of course expect that the person returning would need some proof it had been legitimately purchased, if not the original purchaser.
Sorry this was the conversation from the sales advisor the original person who purchased the watch a year later when collecting the warranty card should be wearing the watch or they will not give the warranty card.
It's an infringement of the consumer statutory rights and unfair trade practice. I'm very surprised that people go along with this bs and do not lodge a complaint and demand their warranty cards immediately after they walked out of the AD door.Originally Posted by JasonM
If this's true (I have not looked myself) and there is no mention of such practice in the ADs in question T&Cs (they would be deemed unfair even if they were) then it's double bs and they know they do not have a leg to stand on if it goes to court, so if properly pressed they would give up the card to settle matter out of court. Cheeky f.
Last edited by VDG; 12th May 2018 at 11:12.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
This is the thread you're referring to:-
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ighlight=rolex
and here's the letter in question.
We'll have to disagree about that.
I look forward to someone who agrees with you attempting to bring a civil action against an AD or Trading Standards taking enforcement action.
Note the op word - recommend. Rolex knows perfectly well that the practice of retaining warranty cards what they 'recommend' to their ADs is in breach of consumer rights and unfair trade practice hence they leave it to the ADs to enforce it, opening the latter to possible legal action.
Again, I'm surprised no one sued the s out if an AD who retained warranty card already. Then again people like to be abused and some pay good money for it..
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Could you be specific about any breach of consumer rights and unfair trade practice?
taz, thank you for clarifying. Given that feedback, if I were presented with a Rolex and told that the warranty card would be supplied in say 6 months, I'd be very wary unless I knew the seller was 100% reliable. So maybe this policy will work.
Thanks very much, Rick. That's exactly the one I recalled but couldn't locate!This is the thread you're referring to:-
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...ighlight=rolex
and here's the letter in question.
Surely simply filling the card in ensures they cannot be sold as new, their aim, retaining the card doesn’t solve much.
Cheers..
Jase
Greys offen sell them described as new.
....but not always.
So as not to offend Rolex or HMRC, the latter potentially excited by the thought of something offered under the VAT margin scheme yet described as "new," one particularly handsome chap describes such watches as "unworn, in delivery stickers."
Indeed your correct and it does not seem to affect the asking price asked, since I guess we all know its er...new!
Just a couple of thoughts which come to mind, mind you I have not touched a casebook for more than 20 years
1) Watch supplied not as described ie not alongside warranty card which is an essential part of any new watch (by law, warranty documents have to be supplied with any goods)
2) I'm not in possession and unable to dispose of my property - warranty card as I see fit
3) I'm expected to return in one year to AD to collect a part of the goods I legally own already, hence it's unfair stipulation and possibly breach of contract - ie the contract was not concluded when money was exchanged for goods.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Wouldnt number 1 be moot straight away since it is part of the new sales agreement before you hand over your hard earned cash! This agreement then in turn makes 2 and 3 invalid also.
- - - Updated - - -
Wouldnt number 1 be moot straight awAy since is part of the sales agreement before you hand over your hard earned cash!
Last edited by kultschar; 12th May 2018 at 12:23.
I'm confident the ADs face no threat arising from any of the above if they deliver their Ts & Cs correctly.
1) How is it not as described? You will get the warranty card and it will be delivered in line with the schedule you've now agreed.
Can you cite law demanding that warranty documents have to be supplied in a particular form with any goods? One imagines you have warranty documents in the form of the new, shiny-cover "5-year" booklet and your sales purchase receipt, just not the warranty card.
If pushed, the AD might say "We can give you a photocopy of that card if you like, sir."
2) You paid for a little plastic card on the basis that it could be collected a year later. This does not affect your rights otherwise. Once it is delivered as you contracted, then you can do with it as you wish.
3) There is no automatic requirement for a contract to be completed immediately upon engrossment or payment. A "reasonable time" would be a court's default expectation, unless a specific schedule has been agreed.....which it has, in the "DMR" Ts & Cs model.
H
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th May 2018 at 13:24.
Even if one have signed on the dotted line and agreed to the certain T&Cs which subsequently found to be unfair, punitive and infringing statutory rights they will be deemed void and unenforceable.
By any stretch of imagination the practice is unfair, and all it takes is someone really pissed off, determined and able to put one of the ADs on their arse for the whole practice to be scrapped in the face of further lawsuits.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Re 1) is it possible to service watch under warranty in a different country by presenting 5 year booklet and/or sales receipt? If not, then the plastic card is an essential part of the goods - the watch, and by withholding it AD is infringing the owner's right to free service which, I presume, is expressly stipulated on the Rolex w/s and in the booklet.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
I have explicitly been told that this will indeed be accommodated, yes.
I see no legal complaint remaining at this point.
You further say that the position is unfair. I don’t like it, but how is it unfair? Clear terms before you contract and if you don’t like them you may buy another product or look for another supplier.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th May 2018 at 15:16.
Thanks Haywood, as I've said, I am not a practicing solicitor and my musings are simply based on principals of fairness/equity, and my personal beliefs. When I have a chance, I'll ask my friends who are practicing atm, none of them are in the consumer law though, still the whole thing is akin PPI to me and I would be very surprised if it is not challenged in court sooner than later.
Fas est ab hoste doceri
PPI came under financial regulators' jurisdiction (currently FCA / FOS) which is much more onerous than retail and contract law.
There is at least one spanner currently in legal correspondence with an AD, trying to obtain his warranty card immediately rather than in a year as had been agreed prior to his purchasing a BLNR. He will lose if he pursues the case he appears to be making.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th May 2018 at 17:50.
Really don’t see the issue, IF you are buying the watch to keep.
Last edited by Chalet; 12th May 2018 at 19:25.
But what happens if I move within the year, e.g to a different country? Are they happy to send me the card via recorded delivery?
This is how I see it. Your buying the watch.
It only seems to be a problem if people are buying with the thought of selling or are over stretching themselves.
If there is a problem with the watch it IS still under warranty ( with or without the card)
When I purchased mine the warranty number was printed on the receipt.
To the above post asking with they send it on abroad, I would guess yes but why not ask if your interested in purchasing one.
Me neither if buying from AD, its the flippers wont be happy. I think the problem lies with private sale s as per the thread started off regarding Batman for sale on eBay with no card.
Last edited by bokbok; 12th May 2018 at 20:52.
Why should they?
A couple of times in my career a client has wished us to consider a warranty claim on a jewellery item (typically suffering from accidental damage in truth) “...but I now live in France, so what are you going to do about that?”
I would suggest that a friendly approach before you go would see the AD agree to release the card to your appointed representative but only at the agreed time. After that its onward delivery would be your problem.
The policy seems to have survived every test presented so far.
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th May 2018 at 20:46.
It's just unpopular and another layer of confuscation in the already convoluted path to purchasing a new Sports Rolex via an AD.
The main reason the greys have done so well previously is precisely because of this 'smoke and mirrors' approach. If somebody has enough disposable income to splash a few thousand quid on a watch they may well see spending more but not waiting as a viable option.
I have occasionally done so in the past.
Once people get used to the card malarky and realise it's not needed for warranty work the AD's will be back to square one and the grey dealers will continue selling them as before.
Last edited by Chris_in_the_UK; 12th May 2018 at 20:50.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
Surely this new policy removes a lot of the smoke and mirrors?
I don’t think the policy will stop much, as you suggest.
It already allows us to ask higher prices for full sets.
Not really Heywood - the old 'no list, full list, not taking names, 5 year, 10 year waits etc.' still prevails.
And so will others, so it really is just another Rolex AD own goal in some ways.
When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks long into you.........
I haven’t found this to be the case, as I had the warranty card sent out to me. And it seems strange to be told you have to wear the watch to pick the warranty card up. Think it’s another example of different POV’s depending on the AD
And another been on while see if anyone takes the plunge! Why not just wait a year then sell it or better still take the stickers put on the wrist and enjoy it. if it's all about the wages there is still plenty next year
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?m...2F113028105561
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk
Last edited by bokbok; 1st June 2018 at 23:31.
Surprised they were able to leave with all stickers in tact yet no warranty card.
Depends on dealer. I've been told that my next SS Rolex will be unsized and stickers left on, but WC retained for 12 months.
I asked my AD the other day what they are going to say to someone when they come in and ask for their warranty card if they’re now the new owner (first buyer sells to this person)
I said to him the contract is with the AD and the first buyer, if someone new owns the Watch within the year and comes in are they just going to flat refuse even though technically it belongs to his Watch, the contract wasn’t with him but the original buyer.
The card belongs to the new owner and the contract is with the old owner. Does the dealer have any right to withhold the card from this chap?
He didn’t seem to have an answer for that.
I bought from an AD last week and during the purchase requested that they keep the warranty card for 12 months.
Caught me by surprise tbh but they have always been very good and as I have no intention to flip, I am comfortable
with them retaining the card.
Yes. They have no contract with him.
They have a contract with the original purchaser only, the execution of which they will complete under the terms specified.
If the second owner was not told this by the first, any dispute is between them alone.
But isn’t that the point, the contract was with the previous owner of the card, the new owner of the card is stood there in front of them now. The original owner has nothing to do with the card now as it belongs to the Watch and by proxy the new owner.
I still think it’ll all fall apart down the line when someone with enough money gets his nose out of joint.
Stood in court in front of a judge they’ll only see facts and they’ll ask,
J “Is the card unique to the Watch & belongs to the Watch?”
D “Yes.”
J “Are you the owner of the watch sir?”
P “Yes your honour”
J “so I see the owner of the card wants his property that you witheld as stated in contract?”
D “Yes”
J “So, is the owner of the Watch still the person in your agreement?”
D “No”
J “so you agree the new owner owns the card as it belongs to the Watch?”
D “err, well but”
J “Yes or no?”
D “Yes”
J “The agreement to keep the card is with the original owner & not valid to this case, it’s now this man’s property so give the man his card”
D “but, but you’re wrong”
J “how dare you, you’re ordered to do community service wearing a Michael Korrs rose gold quartz Chronograph! Case dismissed”
D [goes out kicking & screaming restrained by two officers] “you’ll pay for this!”
J “ORDER [3 hammers] Remove that Omega Seamaster he received with heavy staff discount from his wrist immediately”
I guess it’d all get really silly (as if my Rolex courtroom drama on ITV4 wasn’t enough) when the only way for the AD to Persue it is to go after the original owner who will then get sued by the new owner and it’ll be one big self perpetuating sue-fest.
One for Judge Rinder maybe?
The card doesn't belong to the watch in any legal sense.
The card is part of the complete package bought by the original customer.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
This isn’t helping my courtroom drama!
But seriously though, who does the card belong to then? I’m talking when the Watch is not owned by the original owner.
I’d have thought if the card has the watch’s serial number it’s part of the package you’ve bought. The AD is only taking care of your card in their safe. It doesn’t belong to them.
I'm not disagreeing.
I can't figure out why people are content to let Rolex treat them like mugs.
I would never buy any goods with these sort of restrictions, when goods are mine I should be free to do whatever I like with it, sell it, alter it, whatever.
Buy a car, give it a set of new wheels, dealer subsequently refuses to service or provide parts for anyone else to service it unless they fit an original set of wheels at my expense.
Holding onto the cars documentation for a year to make it difficult to sell. People would laugh and walk away at such arrogance.
Rolex.............. 'well it's a 'luxury' watch, you should feel privileged to buy under these conditions.' The fact it is just another mass produced, assembly line product. with only clever marketing to justify the price and to distinguish it from its competitors seems to go over peoples heads.
Mitch
As the card is part of the complete package bought by the original customer, (along with the boxes, booklets, tags and stickers etc - unless agreed that the dealer can retain any of these permanently [e.g. the stickers], they all 'belong' together as part of the purchased package, irrespective of the dealer holding on to the card - it remains part of the complete package.
If the original purchaser sells the watch on, he may agree to sell the watch with all parts of the original purchase, or less any specific items, (e.g. no box and papers as they've been thrown away), this becomes the current package and, unless otherwise specified by the seller, the card remains part of that current package. As such, as long as it is not excluded by the original purchaser as part of the new sale, then the card now belongs to the subsequent purchaser as he has bought the current package.
Any AD would find it very difficult to argue otherwise.
The legitimacy of a dealer withholding the card in the first place is, of course, an entirely different matter.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
So Mitch if an AD offered you a steel Daytona or the new Pepsi on the condition that they would keep the card for 12 months you’d decline? Knowing that you could easily make 4k or 5k a year later by just ‘playing their game’?
I admire your high morals fella, well done!
Some people just can’t be bought. Others are happy to compromise their principles for a few £k. Each to their own.
Correct. It is owned by the new party but the AD has a case to continue to retain the card for the 12 months as they can at that stage legitimately claim that formed part of the conditions attached to the original purchase of the watch.
Bottom line if you are not happy with having the card retained don't buy one. I get that in a perfect world it shouldn't happen, but then this is entirely because we aren't living in a perfect world and we don't all have an equal chance of buying the coveted models. Anything that discourages flippers so that those that want to buy the watch for their own enjoyment gets my vote. No different to how many other luxury good suppliers operate to safeguard against serial profit takers.
The card cannot “belong to” the watch in a legal sense and the exchange you describe is indeed the stuff of television drama rather than factual possibility.
I’m sorry and I wish it were not the case, but if the main agent approach is conducted correctly it is legally sound.
H
Indeed. The card is part of a package that 'belongs' to the customer who purchased it. In the current situation, a contract exists between the initial purchaser and the dealer such that the dealer may retain the card for 12 months, (whether that is in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Act or not in terms of what we are discussing here it can be disregarded). There is no contract between the initial purchaser and the dealer as to what the initial purchaser can do with his purchase, the initial purchaser may, if so chosen, sell the package, complete or in part, to someone else at any time within or without that 12 months at whatever price the parties agree.
If the initial purchaser chooses to sell the package then the card, as part of that package, 'belongs' to the new purchaser. As there is no contract between the dealer and the new purchaser, then unless the initial customer makes it clear as part of the contract that forms his sale to the new customer that the dealer will retain the card for the remainder of the 12 months, the new customer would be completely within his/her rights to demand that card from the dealer. All they would need to show would be a receipt for said watch signed by the initial purchaser.
Rolex, assuming it's a directive from them, seem to be building a whole can of worms here.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
The initial purchaser can't sell something if that forms part of a contract with a third party without taking that contract into consideration.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote