Voiding warranty

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

Based on new 5 yr warranty, case closed? Don’t think so.
Says only name of dealer on warranty.
Doesn’t say can’t be transferred.
Says “sold to a consumer”.

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Based on new 5 yr warranty, case closed? Don’t think so.
Says only name of dealer on warranty.
Doesn’t say can’t be transferred.
Says “sold to a consumer”.

I agree, but they gave themselves an out with "void if there is any intervention by a third party" although that is very ambiguous and probably has very little legal ramification.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

I agree, but they gave themselves an out with "void if there is any intervention by a third party" although that is very ambiguous and probably has very little legal ramification.

Would the “intervention” be related third party service and repair?

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by superpop

Wrong, you are picking words out of the conditions. It doesn't say it can be transferred either. It specifically says the warranty is void if the watch is not sold to the buyer via an AD. It also indicates that the warranty is void if the card is not filled out to completion by the selling AD. If the warranty followed the watch you would not need the warranty card and you certainly would not need your name on the card. There is a reason the dealer fills out the card and puts the buyers name on the card. In any case it is yet another reason I only buy from an AD. Who knows what a gray seller does to a watch or who they let monkey with it before selling it on.

That is not true though. My AD gives me a pen and says put whatever name you want on it. It says it has to have the name of the AD on it (which it obviously has), and if the AD gives me the authority to write a name on it, it's considered to be filled out by the AD.

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Would the “intervention” be related third party service and repair?

Most likely, but they were very sneaky with the "third party" thing because that could mean just about anything.

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

BTW, invariably, courts rule ambiguity in a contract in favor of the plaintiff, not the party writing the contract.

I was gonna write this as well but a third party must have tampered with my brain lol. BTW the plaintiff is not necessarily the party that wrote the contract.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

That is not true though. My AD gives me a pen and says put whatever name you want on it. It says it has to have the name of the AD on it (which it obviously has), and if the AD gives me the authority to write a name on it, it's considered to be filled out by the AD.





Most likely, but they were very sneaky with the "third party" thing because that could mean just about anything.



I was gonna write this as well but a third party must have tampered with my brain lol. BTW the plaintiff is not necessarily the party that wrote the contract.

Correct, by plaintiff, I was referring to us, the consumer, the owner presenting the warranty request.
Courts view unilateral contracts in a manner that if not clear, the consumer benefits from the ambiguity since they did not write it or have a say in how it was detailed.
Can’t see Rolex prevailing on this issue.

[superpop]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Based on new 5 yr warranty, case closed? Don’t think so.
Says only name of dealer on warranty.
Doesn’t say can’t be transferred.
Says “sold to a consumer”.

Wrong, you are picking words out of the conditions. It doesn't say it can be transferred either. It specifically says the warranty is void if the watch is not sold to the buyer via an AD. It also indicates that the warranty is void if the card is not filled out to completion by the selling AD. If the warranty followed the watch you would not need the warranty card and you certainly would not need your name on the card. There is a reason the dealer fills out the card and puts the buyers name on the card. In any case it is yet another reason I only buy from an AD. Who knows what a gray seller does to a watch or who they let monkey with it before selling it on.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by superpop

Wrong, you are picking words out of the conditions. It doesn't say it can be transferred either. It specifically says the warranty is void if the watch is not sold to the buyer via an AD. It also indicates that the warranty is void if the card is not filled out to completion by the selling AD. If the warranty followed the watch you would not need the warranty card and you certainly would not need your name on the card. There is a reason the dealer fills out the card and puts the buyers name on the card. In any case it is yet another reason I only buy from an AD. Who knows what a gray seller does to a watch or who they let monkey with it before selling it on.

I disagree.
It says if watch was sold to a consumer whose name appears on the card. Doesn’t say that it must be the that same consumer presenting it for service. If watch sold by AD, with purchaser’s name, and watch then subsequently sold to someone else, where is language to deny such claim?
However, as others have chimed in, who has funds to pursue this ambiguous language? Certainly a class action would be a big aid. BTW, invariably, courts rule on ambiguity in a contract in favor of the plaintiff, not the party writing the contract.
I made a living out of disputing contract language.

[AK797]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

invariably, courts rule on ambiguity in a contract in favor of the plaintiff, not the party writing the contract.

Man, that takes me back to studying contract law at Uni, I did a summer placement with a big law firm and after they spent half an hour deciding where to put a comma in a sentence I knew this wasn't the job for me.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by AK797

Man, that takes me back to studying contract law at Uni, I did a summer placement with a big law firm and after they spent half an hour deciding where to put a comma in a sentence I knew this wasn't the job for me.

[marcusp23]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

I disagree.
It says if watch was sold to a consumer whose name appears on the card. Doesn’t say that it must be the that same consumer presenting it for service. If watch sold by AD, with purchaser’s name, and watch then subsequently sold to someone else, where is language to deny such claim?
However, as others have chimed in, who has funds to pursue this ambiguous language? Certainly a class action would be a big aid. BTW, invariably, courts rule on ambiguity in a contract in favor of the plaintiff, not the party writing the contract.
I made a living out of disputing contract language.

I agree with your reading, and your view that the language is ambiguous