Originally Posted by
MrGrumpy
Well, yes, that's undoubtedly true. BUT they had specific instructions not to change something, on something which is the customer's possession, which I don't find acceptable. Its their perogative not to perform the work according, but they have to inform the customer of this in advance, where the owner can decide on alternative solutions. I think the OP could claim for damages, as Rolex have damaged the OP's enjoyment of the watch, by ignoring specific instructions.
An alternative example - if you owned an pukka artwork and you gave it to me for cleaning, restoration or whatever, and I decided that the original painting was terrible so decided to scrape part of it off and paint my own 'improved' version, you'd be livid, and the artwork would be worth a fraction of its original value. Its the same idea.