Who says Rolex won't replace a faulty watch?

[Viv Savage]

But somehow I think not. I found this card tucked away with the translation booklet of my latest purchase.

[Hairdude1]

Good looking out

[Sub4Life]

I don't think "RUSA" would ever replace a watch.

[jolimont]

can we clarify something?
if you buy it and you find a scratch on the dial the day after- can you demand a new watch or will they just offer a new dial?

[padi56]

Originally Posted by Sub4Life

I don't think "RUSA" would ever replace a watch.

Exactly they will always try to repair first just like with any other warranty with anything the buy with a warranty today.If it cannot be repaired then just like any other warranty the goods should be replaced.

[bondtoys]

If you get thru by claiming that a scratch on the dial is a major failure, yes!

But I doubt that it is.

[Andad]

IMO those guarantees are great to have right up until you need to use them then they tend to become 'complicated'.

What caused the 'major failure'? Did you drop it ethat is the only way the damage could have ocurred.
What does 'reasonably forseeable loss or damage' mean?
Does 'acceptable quality' include visual inspection with a 10x loupe and if so than who decides if the quality is unacceptable?

Seems just like smoke and mirrors to moi.

[JohnBoy]

I'll bet repair or replace (if found to be defective) depends wholly on the cost to Rolex. The watch would have to be pretty messed up to qualify for replacement as their effective 'in-house' labor rate for non-profit repair is probably quite reasonable. The work can also be scheduled as 'fill-in' when they are not busy doing profitable repairs. JMHO

[Bangel]

Sounds good in theory, but I'd like to see the fine print as to what constitutes "major", "failure" and "acceptable quality".

[77T]

Originally Posted by Bangel

Sounds good in theory, but I'd like to see the fine print as to what constitutes "major", "failure" and "acceptable quality".

If those terms are not spelled out in the Australian laws governing warranty, then look to your country's case law. But remember that today's definitions can change in the future or be reinterpreted by Supreme Courts - so YMMV.

Each nation may have different laws governing this - so Rolex must use generic language. They are not responsible to reprint the entire warranty code for each country.

[Tools]

All that card says is that they will repair or replace a faulty watch. Whether it is a repair or replacement is entirely up to them, not the consumer, and it is likely that they will almost always opt for repair..

[Bangel]

Originally Posted by 77T

If those terms are not spelled out in the Australian laws governing warranty, then look to your country's case law. But remember that today's definitions can change in the future or be reinterpreted by Supreme Courts - so YMMV.

Each nation may have different laws governing this - so Rolex must use generic language. They are not responsible to reprint the entire warranty code for each country.

You are completely right, of course.

I guess what I was getting at was that just taking that printed statement at face value may result in the consumer having different expectations from what actually happens.

As you pointed out, the Rolex statement is necessarily generic and as such I found it ambiguous (akin to smoke and mirrors as directioneng said!). The absolute recourse a consumer would have is again, as you correctly mentioned, spelled out in the laws of the individual country.

[SUBversive]

Australian consumer law....



Rolex is not a fan!

[gwozhog]

RUSA will not replace a watch. I had 3 service trips in the last 6 months from water damage due to them not tightening my case back properly. The watch did not function again even after a complete service. They straight up told me we will not replace your watch we will only fix it. Very disappointing.

[tulgsT]

Another option would be to write a letter to customer Service Dept at Rolex SA. They will write you back. I did and they contacted RSC in NYC to properly address my issue. 3 service trips to address an issue sounds like a non-fixable issue...