Voiding warranty

[blada4life]

Originally Posted by 037

You might want to print out the following from Rolex's site since it makes no mention of second-hand or third-hand purchases. The card was named and dated at the time of purchase so being crossed out with Sharpie shouldn't matter but might be why they said yours was voided.



Source: https://www.rolex.com/services/faq.html

These terms are vague at best. Term #1 makes no mention of the exchanging or reselling of watches. One can argue that at some point the watch was sold by an official retailer. It’s not only foreseeable but very easy to exclude reselling of the watch. Pure BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saltzy]

So, essentially they are limited the supply to such a level where people need to pay over MSRP if they want a newer piece or not wait at least a year to get it through an AD (which is what I am facing in this area for this model these days), and then punish the people willing to do so by voiding out their warranty?

Yeah, if that's the case and is what happened to me people are gonna go crazy.

You can't punish someone for buying your product second hand for market rate like this, when you are the reason they needed to do so in the first place.

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by Mystro

The issue sounds like the name was crossed out on the card with a sharpie and that set off the red flags. Why and who crossed out the original name on the warranty card with a sharpie pen??

That doesn't make any sense since Rolex themselves don't care what name is on the card (i.e. put your son's name or put Mickey Mouse), and if the buyer doesn't want to put a name for whatever reason, for the AD to put XXXXXXX just so that there is something there. I don't see why a crossed out name would be any different than these examples.

[superpop]

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The warranty states that the warranty is not applicable if the watch is sold by a non AD. That tells me that the warranty follows the card and name, not the watch. Gray's selling the watch second hand are not an AD therefore they cannot offer the Rolex warranty. Yet another reason not to buy from grays.

[Laszlo]

Grays are not aliens man.

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by superpop

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The warranty states that the warranty is not applicable if the watch is sold by a non AD. That tells me that the warranty follows the card and name, not the watch. Gray's selling the watch second hand are not an AD therefore they cannot offer the Rolex warranty. Yet another reason not to buy from grays.

All Rolex watches are originally sold from an AD.

[sgwatch]

I think the warranty used to only go with the original owner in the U.S. But I believe this changed a number of years ago.

[superpop]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

All Rolex watches are originally sold from an AD.

Correct, and when the AD sells the watch they fill out the warranty card, or they are supposed to. That is the very definition of being sold by the AD. You or anyone else then subsequently selling the same watch are selling it as a non AD, and you cannot offer the same warranty as an AD, you are not an AD. Not sure why this is so confusing.

[Ichiran]

Wow, if this is true, then there will be an impact on the resale market for sure.

[pkincy]

Originally Posted by blada4life

These terms are vague at best. Term #1 makes no mention of the exchanging or reselling of watches. One can argue that at some point the watch was sold by an official retailer. It’s not only foreseeable but very easy to exclude reselling of the watch.

And you also could read this to exclude the warranty on watches that were not sold by an AD, i.e., watches sold on the secondary market. Yes they were sold by an AD once, but not the time you bought it hence terminating the warranty coverage.

Given the several different anecdotal statements by different trained SAs I suspect we have a Rolex change happening.

[SS Oyster]

Whoever told you that (the reason for the void) is wrong (see first below), but voiding could be true for a different reason ... that Sharpie crossing out the original owner's name. Instead of asking each of us, just read from the below link, where Rolex spells out their warranty terms and conditions (T&Cs).

https://www.rolex.com/services/faq.html

"What does the Rolex guarantee cover?

Rolex guarantees the proper functioning of its watches for a period of five years from the date of purchase. The Rolex guarantee excludes normal wear-and-tear (notably the wear-and-tear of non-metal bracelets and straps), loss, theft, or damage due to misuse. The substitution of components with, or the addition of, components or accessories not manufactured by Rolex will invalidate the guarantee. The guarantee is valid only if (1) the watch has been sold by an Official Rolex Retailer; (2) the guarantee card has been completed in full by the Official Rolex Retailer at the time of purchase; and (3) the guarantee card is presented with the watch, either to an Official Rolex Retailer or to an Official Rolex Service Centre. Any work carried out by third parties will render the guarantee null and void."

But, ..... your warranty card has been altered (crossed out with Sharpie), which is likely the real reason for the voided warranty.

"Can a name be changed on a guarantee card?

The name of the original purchaser cannot be changed under any circumstances. Please contact the Official Rolex Retailer from which you purchased your Rolex watch for assistance."

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by superpop

Correct, and when the AD sells the watch they fill out the warranty card, or they are supposed to. That is the very definition of being sold by the AD. You or anyone else then subsequently selling the same watch are selling it as a non AD, and you cannot offer the same warranty as an AD, you are not an AD. Not sure why this is so confusing.

It is not confusing at all. All Rolex watches are sold from an AD, and the warranty is executed. At that point, the warranty follows the watch, not the owner.

[moneymike83]

The sales people in there like if you not a regular they don’t even want to approach you. They have by far the worst customer service ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[teabags001]

I don't understand why the name would be crossed through with a sharpie? That makes no sense unless the name is completely scribbled out. I myself would not want to buy a used watched with the name crossed out.

[yanks995]

Speaking of warranty cards, I have seen many people tampering the date on waranty cards to make it appear the watch is still under warranty or it is still a newly-bought watch. I have encountered at least 3 instances already.

[Ian Macdermott]

Originally Posted by Saltzy

I am actually a fan of the whole 'we don't need your business' thumbing their noses at people Rolex attitude

I bet that your not such a fan now of Rolexes DGAF attitude .

[Bluside]

I was told the same thing by the NY RSC when I inquired about buying a used watch. They said I would need a signed written Bill of Sale from the original owner for the warranty to be valid.

[brandrea]

On a related note: does anyone know if the warranty card is necessary to perform warranty work at RSC? Has anyone here tried to bring in a watch without the card for service?

I would’ve thought the warranty card is used more as a convenience mostly to look up the watch in their system... I’m curious if they couldn’t simply enter the serial number of the watch the watch to find which AD it was sold at, the date of sale, remaining warranty etc.

I use RSC Toronto and have been there multiple times over the years but I always have my warranty cards. Just curious on the above.

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by superpop

Seems pretty straight forward to me. The warranty states that the warranty is not applicable if the watch is sold by a non AD. That tells me that the warranty follows the card and name, not the watch. Gray's selling the watch second hand are not an AD therefore they cannot offer the Rolex warranty. Yet another reason not to buy from grays.

This is how I read it, as well.

But, the warranty is Rolex’s warranty. Not the non-ADs. Rolex will be the one to define how it works. And trust me, they’ve had plenty of legal experience doing just that. They don’t have any confusion about how their warranty works. And I’m talking about Rolex, not an AD.

The non-AD has no authority to represent or bind, what Rolex will, or will not, do.

If a non-AD induced you to pay a higher price because the non-AD negligently misrepresented Rolex's warranty, then you might have a claim against that non-AD.

Question: did the non-AD guarantee that Rolex would honor the remaining term of the warranty? If not, why do you think they didn’t? It’s not hard to figure out.

[AK797]

Rolex have been throwing out ways to curb flipping and this was one idea floated around, that the warranty would be invalid if you were not the original buyer, so it is not official policy but up to that RSC, they can pretty much do what they want.

[Bluside]

This may be similar to buying a new Rolex at Costco or some of the other online dealers. They cannot offer the Rolex warranty, only in-house.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by brandrea

On a related note: does anyone know if the warranty card is necessary to perform warranty work at RSC? Has anyone here tried to bring in a watch without the card for service?

I would’ve thought the warranty card is used more as a convenience mostly to look up the watch in their system... I’m curious if they couldn’t simply enter the serial number of the watch the watch to find which AD it was sold at, the date of sale, remaining warranty etc.

I use RSC Toronto and have been there multiple times over the years but I always have my warranty cards. Just curious on the above.

I think it is all up to that RSC, in UK we had the one year no warranty card rule so our RSC should have required the card, but I think now everything depends on that RSC's discretion. We know nothing stops flipping except major macro price/supply changes, so not sure if any RSCs will take this action but they are entitled to in this hype new world.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SS Oyster

But, ..... your warranty card has been altered (crossed out with Sharpie), which is likely the real reason for the voided warranty.

"Can a name be changed on a guarantee card?

The name of the original purchaser cannot be changed under any circumstances. Please contact the Official Rolex Retailer from which you purchased your Rolex watch for assistance."

I think you’ve hit the likely reason for the RSC person to make the decision to void the warranty on the OP’s watch. I don’t think it’s fair, but it may be the underlying policy (altered warranty card) for which that FAQ was written.

I’m sorry the OP is going through this - hopefully nothing goes wrong in next 2 years regarding the watch.

Originally Posted by brandrea

On a related note: does anyone know if the warranty card is necessary to perform warranty work at RSC?

I use RSC Toronto and have been there multiple times over the years but I always have my warranty cards. Just curious on the above.

I have read some threads over the years about hassles with warranty work that were caused by missing warranty document/card but can’t find them now.

This case is different - almost like a prequel to the possible future day when OP might need a warranty repair. My sense of Rolex policy is the answer would have been the same if he had asked for any warranty work...”sorry, this document has been altered and is no longer valid”.

I’m not saying it is fair - at least from the owner’s perspective. And I understand all the posts about the prevailing warranty law underlying an owner’s “rights”.

But a “right” can be trampled upon unless one takes action. So an owner must protect their rights.

To me, the next step for OP is a letter the Rolex USA upper management - when in doubt, escalate. If that doesn’t work, maybe to the Legal Dept. to explain this RSC interaction, and challenging the position the RSC rep’s decision. Maybe cite the arbitrary nature of the decision.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[77T]

Originally Posted by Saltzy

They told me that if I had bought it directly from the original owner it was OK, but the fact that I bought it from a middle man voids out the warranty.

I'm not even gonna make it a thing unless the watch needs service the next 2 years, at which point I will lose my mind if I am charged for anything that would normally be covered.

Just not understanding why I was told what I was in a world where everyone is buying these things used and from a million different sources just like I did.

That first sentence is subject to challenge IMHO. If the watch had passed between multiple intermediate owners, I see no reason to void a warranty.

Your second sentence indicates how much it would bother you if a future failure was declined for warranty coverage.

That third sentence is going to be repeated many times as you walk down the Rolex path in your collecting - welcome to the club! next time it might be something else - some arbitrary statement an AD or an REC rep may make.

If you feel strongly, then now is the best time to challenge this issue with the RSC. It may never be needed, but a reinstated warranty would preserve your standing. Sort of like administrative preventative maintenance on your warranty rights.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[superpop]

I am pretty sure the warranty follows the owner, not sure though. I had the same issue with a Breitling I purchased at Costco several years ago. Warranty was voided because the watch was being sold by a non AD. Thankfully in my case the Costco return policy smokes any warranty from anyone. Watch died 5 years later and I simply returned it, no questions asked. They did offer to fix it but said it would take 6 months or more.

[RichM]

Sounds like another NYC RSC “got you” moment. I wouldn’t worry about it unless the watch needs service.

Just not sure why anyone would cross out the name on the card in the first place.

[matt_Denver]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

It is not confusing at all. All Rolex watches are sold from an AD, and the warranty is executed. At that point, the warranty follows the watch, not the owner.

But if that were the case why wouldn’t all the grays include the “following” warranty cards with the watch?

[1William]

The warranty follows the watch not the owner. There are posts which detail this very well and Rolex is contractually bound by the warranty. The OP did not present the watch for a warranty claim, only verification as to authenticity. If a customer will accept that there is no warranty and go away, then I guess there is no warranty. If the customer bucks and moves forward with a warranty claim, I would believe, in the end the customer would prevail provided the claim falls into the contract and consumer protection laws. Misinformation about warranty claims work in the favor of the antiquated AD system and Rolex, which has helped fuel the current shortages, not the Grey's. No Rolex watch is sold that did not start at an AD unless it is stolen and that is a different situation. I would enjoy my watch and not get sideways over this. Easier said then done sometimes but in the end you will probably not need to make a warranty claim and if you did I believe, by the facts presented, you would prevail.

[Chadridv]

NYC is notorious for giving people a hard time about warranties when you’re not the original owner. But in this case it probably has something to do with the original name being crossed out with a sharpie.

I’m not saying the warranty shouldn’t transfer and remain valid, but it looks weird to have the card tampered with.

[Chadridv]

Love how there will be non-stop “warranty follows the watch” matter of fact comments. I can’t say how many times I’ve had to say this on TRF. RSC NY plays by their own rules! I’ve been there multiple times where they either didn’t honor the warranty or demanded a bill of sale from the original owner.

It’s simply a different situation there then anywhere else.