Is Rolex Warranty Transferrable?

[alexthegreat123]

Bring it to your AD and ask them to ship to RSC. Never had issues being 2nd 3rd 4th owner of many watches

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Duration or time. My Rolex came with a 2 year warranty and I think I read that new Rolexes now come with a 5 year warranty. Regardless of which, the duration is limited.
In order to be a full warranty, the company must meet all 5 criteria. The company must meet all 5 of the criteria, first one being: "You do not limit the duration of implied warranties."

The durations you are referring to have nothing to do with implied warranties. Implied warranties are something else. For example, I post a watch for sale it's implied I have the right to sell that watch. Or you go into a hardware store and tell the salesman you need to dig a hole in the ground, it is implied that whatever tool he sells you will be suitable for that purpose, i.e. a shovel and not a hammer.

The Rolex warranty does not limit the duration of any implied warranties. The current five year (previously two year) time frame of the Rolex warranty has to do with the actual written warranty on manufacturing defects, materials and workmanship and has nothing to do with any implied warranties - none of which are limited in the warranty.

The Rolex warranty is a full warranty. And BTW, in accordance with the law it is conspicuously labeled a full warranty - right in the title it says "Full Warranty".

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by 77T

It's a debate until you take it (or send it) to RSC with a warranty problem - that's when the debate ends and the real world hits home. If they refuse to work on it, your options are limited...

You bring up a good point but limited option you speak of is in regards to consumers accepting a customer service rep's opinion. Someone who is not qualified or paid to interpret the law or speak on behalf of a company.

[77T]

What I meant was your options are limited to legal proceeding. Assuming escalation doesn't overcome the RSC manager's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

The durations you are referring to have nothing to do with implied warranties. Implied warranties are something else. For example, I post a watch for sale it's implied I have the right to sell that watch. Or you go into a hardware store and tell the salesman you need to dig a hole in the ground, it is implied that whatever tool he sells you will be suitable for that purpose, i.e. a shovel.

The Rolex warranty does not limit the duration of any implied warranties. The current five year (previously two year) time frame of the Rolex warranty has to do with the actual written warranty on manufacturing defects, materials and workmanship and has nothing to do with any implied warranties - none of which are limited in the warranty.

The Rolex warranty is a full warranty. And BTW, in accordance with the law it is conspicuously labeled a full warranty - right in the title.

Sorry but you are 100% wrong. This is not my options but from experience working within the confines of the Magnuson-Moss Act itself.

This is the problems. People try to see meanings in words that aren't there by attempting to redefine its intended meaning.

I have PMs from attorney members here that have not only said I was 100% right, which I already knew, but that find it amusing that people try to create new meaning of plain English.

It's not rocket science.

BTW- if a warranty states, "Full Two (Five) Year Warranty"as Rolex does. That means it's limited warranty since it's own title is conspicuously stating the limits.

That is also a requirement of the law

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by 77T

What I meant was your options are limited to legal proceeding. Assuming escalation doesn't overcome the RSC manager's decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ask to speak to general counsel. That will end that BS real quickly.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Sorry but you are 100% wrong. This is not my options but from experience working within the confines of the Magnuson-Moss Act itself.

This is the problems. People try to see meanings in words that aren't there by attempting to redefine its intended meaning.

I have PMs from attorney members here that have not only said I was 100% right, which I already knew, but that find it amusing that people try to create new meaning of plain English.

It's not rocket science.

BTW- if a warranty states, "Full Two (Five) Year Warranty"as Rolex does. That means it's limited warranty since it's own title is conspicuously stating the limits.

That is also a requirement of the law

With all due respect, it is not me reading anything into it. The MM act clearly states no limits be placed on the duration of "implied warranties". Implied warranties have a definite legal definition, and that definition has nothing to do with the time limits involved in the Rolex warranty.

Actually, implied warranties have little to do with whether the warranty is full or limited, except that they cannot be limited in duration with a full warranty. I can buy an item with a limited warranty (for example, the warranty is not transferrable) and that limited warranty still has implied warranties attached to it.

We do agree on one thing...it isn't rocket science.

[77T]

Yea, I'm sure the GC will trot right over.

The Rolex GC will answer any suit you file - the cost of the OP spending even 2 or 3 hours of his attorney's time would exceed the cost of a warranty repair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jemspeed]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Duration or time. My Rolex came with a 2 year warranty and I think I read that new Rolexes now come with a 5 year warranty. Regardless of which, the duration is limited.
In order to be a full warranty, the company must meet all 5 criteria. The company must meet all 5 of the criteria, first one being: "You do not limit the duration of implied warranties."

I'm not sure you know what an implied warranty is. The Rolex USA warranty is not debatable, it is a full warranty and explicitly says so. Rolex watches with Rolex SA warranties are very debatable because Rolex USA and Rolex SA are two very seperate companies.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Jemspeed

I'm not sure you know what an implied warranty is. The Rolex USA warranty is not debatable, it is a full warranty and explicitly says so. Rolex watches with Rolex SA warranties are very debatable because Rolex USA and Rolex SA are two very seperate companies.

First you say it's debatable the. You say it's not.

I will answer your post in full when I have the time but i do understand warranties and contract law. I also know the difference between a full warrant and a limited warranty. The 2 or 5 year Rolex warranty, is a limited a warranty purely based on the duration of time it's valid. You need to read the act that you cited

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by 77T

Yea, I'm sure the GC will trot right over.

The Rolex GC will answer any suit you file - the cost of the OP spending even 2 or 3 hours of his attorney's time would exceed the cost of a warranty repair.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They won't and thats the point. There are laws that a warranty must comply with. In the absence of a warranty saying not transferable, it's transferable. I don't know how much easier it could get. Why do you guys think it's so complicated?

[enjoythemusic]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Why do you guys think it's so complicated?

Because, it seems, they like to argue over things that are not affecting them at the present time. Sometimes humans like to argue for argument sake. Sad, yet true.

Keep debating guys, i'll see you at the beach because it soon will be SCUBA time

PS: If you guys are really THAT worried, simply send me your Rolex and then you have no more worries. See, another problem very easily solved. Always glad to help.

[Jemspeed]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

First you say it's debatable the. You say it's not.

I will answer your post in full when I have the time but i do understand warranties and contract law. I also know the difference between a full warrant and a limited warranty. The 2 or 5 year Rolex warranty, is a limited a warranty purely based on the duration of time it's valid. You need to read the act that you cited

You are mistaken


a) Full (statement of duration) or limited warrantyAny warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty shall clearly and conspicuously designate such warranty in the following manner, unless exempted from doing so by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c) of this section:
(1) If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a “full (statement of duration) warranty”.
(2) If the written warranty does not meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a “limited warranty”.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Jemspeed

You are mistaken


a) Full (statement of duration) or limited warrantyAny warrantor warranting a consumer product by means of a written warranty shall clearly and conspicuously designate such warranty in the following manner, unless exempted from doing so by the Commission pursuant to subsection (c) of this section:
(1) If the written warranty meets the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a “full (statement of duration) warranty”.
(2) If the written warranty does not meet the Federal minimum standards for warranty set forth in section 2304 of this title, then it shall be conspicuously designated a “limited warranty”.

I was incorrect about the statement of time. I neglected to take into account that my products have other limitations that do not allow us to provide a full warranty. But Rolex still doesn't meet the federal requirements for a full warranty. Unless the verbiage changed, they do not allow the consumer to choose a full refund among other things. My box and papers are all in Miami so I can't even refer to it at the moment. Snap a pic and PM it to me

[modee]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

With all due respect, it is not me reading anything into it. The MM act clearly states no limits be placed on the duration of "implied warranties". Implied warranties have a definite legal definition, and that definition has nothing to do with the time limits involved in the Rolex warranty.

Actually, implied warranties have little to do with whether the warranty is full or limited, except that they cannot be limited in duration with a full warranty. I can buy an item with a limited warranty (for example, the warranty is not transferrable) and that limited warranty still has implied warranties attached to it.

We do agree on one thing...it isn't rocket science.

Implied warranty of what?

Implied warranty of merchantability? Implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose/use?

The first just implies that the product conforms to an ordinary buyer's expectations, in other words, that it is a genuine Rolex watch that tells time, same or average quality as compared to other watches in its price range.

And I don't think a fitness for particular use applies in this context, unless I suppose the buyer doesn't know anything and is relying on the salesman's expertise to pick the exact Rolex that fits his particular use, such as say a diving watch for a diver. Ah, but then the diver would or should know what he wants or needs.

I don't think there is much relevancy to implied warranties on the sale of Rolexes, as they would pass muster.

lol unless...unless...Rolex started advertising that its watches would get you a trophy wife, and then people started suing claiming that they weren't meeting their particular purpose.

Which, somewhat reminds me, aren't there any women on here? Or do the women just lurk and not post.

[T. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by modee

Implied warranty of what?...

...I don't think there is much relevancy to implied warranties on the sale of Rolexes, as they would pass muster.

I agree, and that was my point. I was responding to the poster who stated the Rolex warranty was limited and not full because it was limited in duration to five years. I was simply pointing out that the time limits mentioned in the MM Act in regard to what constitutes a full warranty are in reference to time limits on any "implied warranties" and therefore the five year limit of the Rolex warranty does not mean it is not a full warranty.

[eltonbalch]

I recently sent my SD4000 in for warranty service through my local Rolex AD. I purchased the watch about a year ago from a well-known Philadelphia Rolex AD online and the watch was advertised as having the remainder of the manufacturers warranty. My local AD said the warranty was not transferable and Rolex wouldn't honor it. I asked them to send it anyway with my warranty card. Rolex (NYC) completed the warranty service without charge and returned the watch to the AD where it was returned to me. Obviously it wasn't a problem for me!

[yannis]

Warranty should follow the watch and should not end with the ownership of the first owner. That would be outrageous.