The Rolex Forums   The Rolex Watch

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX


Go Back   Rolex Forums - Rolex Forum > Rolex & Tudor Watch Topics > Rolex General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 25 June 2023, 05:56 AM   #1
GBD
"TRF" Member
 
GBD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 442
Rolex service requirement deemed unfair commercial practice

Over on Fratello there's an interesting read about someone trying to get a vintage OP bracelet fixed and being required by Rolex to also get a full service; the judge in the resulting lawsuit (filed in Amsterdam) deemed this an unfair commercial practice and the watch owner was reimbursed in full. Worth reading in its entirety: https://www.fratellowatches.com/unfa...mburse-client/
GBD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 06:49 AM   #2
Rolexken
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: England
Posts: 821
Interesting - reminds me of my wife’s Cartier Santos quartz watch which we asked the AD from where we bought the watch from to replace the battery when it ran out. We collected the watch and were presented with a large bill for a full service and battery change. After an assertive objection the AD cancelled the bill. Only went to standard battery change places after that.
Rolexken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 07:44 AM   #3
Cambo
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Real Name: Cam
Location: North of 49th
Watch: Rolex/Grand Seiko
Posts: 1,934
Congrats to the person for taking on Goliath, but they better find an alternative watch service for any future work. I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.
__________________
16618 126710BLRO 116500 LN (White) 228235 228239
SBGK002
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 08:59 AM   #4
Dirt
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Brisbane
Watch: DSSD
Posts: 8,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.
No, I think you may be right, when one thinks about it there may be an element of truth to that
Dirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 08:46 AM   #5
Little machines
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Real Name: Joseph
Location: USA
Posts: 2,656
Thank you ! Good post.
Little machines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 09:15 AM   #6
rockysw
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: UK
Posts: 760
Good to know that judge rules fairly.
rockysw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 10:32 AM   #7
MILGAUSS88
"TRF" Member
 
MILGAUSS88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: mississippi river
Posts: 3,194
What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.
MILGAUSS88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 10:44 AM   #8
Nice marmot
"TRF" Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Location: US
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88 View Post
What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.
I agree. I also think we are going to start seeing more and more right to repair cases brought before courts. I think it is a huge consumer rights issue.
Nice marmot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 08:16 PM   #9
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolexken View Post
Interesting - reminds me of my wife’s Cartier Santos quartz watch which we asked the AD from where we bought the watch from to replace the battery when it ran out. We collected the watch and were presented with a large bill for a full service and battery change. After an assertive objection the AD cancelled the bill. Only went to standard battery change places after that.
Totally different, in my opinion. AD did more work than you agreed to in advance, without first asking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MILGAUSS88 View Post
What I would like to see is a legal decision on the right to repair.
Which would require Rolex to sell parts to repairman, as they did in the past.

Currently John Deere is the commercial business that is making most of the news, but if a decision came down against them I could see how it could be applied to the watch industry.
While I certainly see the parallels, I have a difficult time believing that there would be enough momentum here when compared to one of the largest industries in the world (agriculture) and the number of interests involved.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 11:24 AM   #10
hutch300
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Real Name: Jeff
Location: PNW
Posts: 1,482
Take the case out of it and think about the customer. This is why we are lucky to have places like Rolliworks and LAWW for repairs. Craftsman.
hutch300 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 01:21 PM   #11
csaltphoto
"TRF" Member
 
csaltphoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: US
Watch: sub
Posts: 2,429
It's an interesting question at least. I can understand that Rolex wants to retain a given degree of quality over how it's product is treated. Watch repair is not replacing the battery on an iPhone. On the other hand there are watch repair people way more qualified than the average Rolex technician that cannot get a parts account.
csaltphoto is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 01:26 PM   #12
Me4u2night
"TRF" Member
 
Me4u2night's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: New York City
Watch: BLNR
Posts: 885
I think Rolex will be taking a look at their policies, requiring it mandatory to do an overhaul on watches.
Me4u2night is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25 June 2023, 08:20 PM   #13
dannyp
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 6,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Congrats to the person for taking on Goliath, but they better find an alternative watch service for any future work. I somehow don’t see Rolex as the forgive and forget type.
Technically, the customer only took on the AD (and lost); the court decided on its own that perhaps Rolex policies were unfair on some level. However Rolex was never a party to the suit and it was still the AD who "enforced" the policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me4u2night View Post
I think Rolex will be taking a look at their policies, requiring it mandatory to do an overhaul on watches.
Or Rolex will decide there's little advantage to repairing vintage pieces and start declining more and more repairs.
dannyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

OCWatches

Wrist Aficionado

My Watch LLC

WatchesOff5th

DavidSW Watches

Takuya Watches


*Banners Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.





Copyright ©2004-2024, The Rolex Forums. All Rights Reserved.

ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

Rolex is a registered trademark of ROLEX USA. The Rolex Forums is not affiliated with ROLEX USA in any way.