Voiding warranty

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by matt_Denver

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

They pretty much are doing their best to protect their sources by having the buyer contact them instead of their source. There is definitely an official warranty card out there that is valid with the watch.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

If one applies rubbing alcohol or nail polish remover to the crossed out name, will it remove the ink completely or will it just smear?

If it's the former, just wipe it out and write in your name.

I did that
A nice text stating VOID magically appears.

[mountainjogger]

I will echo what many have already said and add my 2 cents...

In the future, I would not purchase a watch with an altered warranty card. There can always be an innocent (yet not smart) explanation. But it does set off warning bells. As a trial lawyer (and as a used watch purchaser) I would not buy a watch with altered papers. No papers, yes. Papers with bite marks from an errant canine, yes. Bubble gum stuck to the warranty card maybe. But name or date crossed out or altered, no.

The Magnum Moss Act and other state and federal laws sound good, and can give you leverage in discussions with Rolex. But unless you are prepared to do battle with Rolex in court, that is about all they are good for. Anyone who ratchets up a dispute with Rolex to the legal arena, had better have sound legal and factual footing and deep pockets. Indeed, the cost of a service will seem like small change in very short order.

Hopefully, you will not need the warranty and all this will be a non-issue. But if you do need service within the warranty period, you can try sending the watch in without the card. My bet is that unless there is an issue with provenance, Rolex will service it. However, if Rolex refuses, the only thing you will be out is the postage.

The only caveat is if Rolex advises you that the watch is either not genuine or it they believe the watch was stolen somewhere up the chain from your purchase. In either of these two scenario’s you will not get your watch back and may, depending on the circumstances, experience other legal entanglements. These issues, while uncommon, are one of the reasons to "buy the seller, not the watch" and a great argument for doing business with a trusted seller.

Bottom line. Enjoy the watch and forget about pushing the issue if you don’t have to.

Just my gratuitous opinion, which is worth nothing but time.

[Saltzy]

Appreciate all the opinions and advise.

I'm crossing my fingers that nothing happens the next 2+ years and this is a non-issue. I took out insurance with JM yesterday to hedge myself in case it does, I get shot down by the RSC, and the seller tells me to pound sand if/when I tell him he sent me a watch with a voided warranty.

As an FYI, I called the store it was sold from before I took it to the RSC and they said it checks out as well. I probably should have just taken that as good enough and not even brought it to the RSC to begin with and this wouldn't even be an issue....although if I know me I would have taken the card with me there if anything happened anyway and this would have just been delayed is all.

[mountainjogger]

And again, it should be a non issue. I have a 2015 Sub C no date purchased used several years ago. And, knock wood, it runs within original specs.

You have a great classic watch. Enjoy it.

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by joli160

I did that
A nice text stating VOID magically appears.

Really?!

[No SUBctitute]

Originally Posted by Bigblu10

Warranty is specifically for "manufacturing defects". A watch from 2017 that runs fine with no issues does not meet the definition for manufacturing defect. And if tomorrow the main spring or rotor axle breaks as an act of God or whatever else, you will have to pay for a movement service as the warranty will be a moot point.

So, you are saying that if the watch runs just fine, and then one day it stops working because something inside the watch failed, warranty coverage will not be activated?

First of all, isn't this why most warranty work is done? The watch is working and then for some unknown reason it stops working?

And your logic that if the main spring was working and then it all of a sudden broke must be an Act of God is a little odd. How could you possibly know why the main spring all of a sudden failed?

[shaunylw]

Originally Posted by Saltzy

So, I work in the NYC area and decided to stop by the service center in the Rolex building on 53rd just to have them take a look at a used Sub I bought to ensure it was legit, even though I was 99.9% it checked out, which is what I was told I should do by an AD as the best way to do so.

I had the warranty card with me and handed it to the customer service rep when I handed it over, which had the name of the original purchaser crossed out with a sharpie.

15 minutes later they came back and told me the watch checks out, but that any remaining warranty time (which is over 2 years) has now been voided because it had been bought from someone that was not the original owner.

As long as nothing goes wrong the next couple of years it's not a big deal, but I'm just curious if this is standard/am I a moron for showing them the warranty card with original owners name crossed out?

Thanks.

I would never have shown them that. I also probably wouldn’t have purchased a watch where someone crossed out the owners name. It’s odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joli160]

Originally Posted by goodolejr

Really?!

Yes, no joke. I can’t post a picture. Currently abroad.

[Saltzy]

Originally Posted by shaunylw

I would never have shown them that. I also probably wouldn’t have purchased a watch where someone crossed out the owners name. It’s odd.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just reviewed the pics from the ad, and none of them show the card with a blurred out name. I guess I should have questioned it when I got it, but I guess I didn't know it was so uncommon/shady.

I assume that if there was any issues Rolex would have confiscated it when I brought it in.

Again, as long as nothing comes up where I would have needed a warranty it's not a huge deal to me, and if that happens I'll deal with it as it comes.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by mountainjogger

The Magnum Moss Act and other state and federal laws sound good, and can give you leverage in discussions with Rolex. But unless you are prepared to do battle with Rolex in court, that is about all they are good for. Anyone who ratchets up a dispute with Rolex to the legal arena, had better have sound legal and factual footing and deep pockets. Indeed, the cost of a service will seem like small change in very short order.

Thank you for this.

I always find it entertaining when people threaten to take Rolex to court or small claims over the most inane reasons. It’s not worth the time, effort, or financing required even if you had said deep pockets.

[Chadridv]

Originally Posted by joli160

Yes, no joke. I can’t post a picture. Currently abroad.

Crazy! I’d heard that too, didn’t know if it was true.

[marcusp23]

This has been asked and answered in several threads over time, with the answer being the warranty transfers with the watch.

This sounds like a specific issue with the warranty card (name being crossed out) and a difficult AD, not a change to Rolex’s general policies

[marcusp23]

Originally Posted by kieselguhr

Thank you for this.

I always find it entertaining when people threaten to take Rolex to court or small claims over the most inane reasons. It’s not worth the time, effort, or financing required even if you had said deep pockets.

Yes, practically speaking, you’re right. But that kind of argument doesn’t sit well with me or other consumers (the idea that a big company can screw their customers just because they’re bigger and have deeper pockets). There are other ways to get there, like class action lawsuits and customer complaints.

[kieselguhr]

Originally Posted by marcusp23

Yes, practically speaking, you’re right. But that kind of argument doesn’t sit well with me or other consumers (the idea that a big company can screw their customers just because they’re bigger and have deeper pockets). There are other ways to get there, like class action lawsuits and customer complaints.

You’re absolutely right as well actually. I have no qualms about pursuing litigation against a manufacturer if it was a significant issue. A good example is poor vehicle engineering or design that results in death.
But something like this is definitely not worth it. Also if Rolex was in the business of screwing people over, there wouldn’t be a consumer base or a Rolex forums.

[watchmaker]

Since the issue of full vs limited warranties is predominantly a concern for those in the USA, can anyone with a US origin Rolex warranty booklet post the actual text Rolex are relying on? Would be interesting to see their wording.

Also, has anyone written to Rolex to get their formal statement on the matter? It’s all well and good debating whether or not the warranty follows the watch, but if Rolex USA say otherwise then is that not the end of the matter - just means the warranty is limited?

[goodolejr]

Originally Posted by joli160

Yes, no joke. I can’t post a picture. Currently abroad.

Interesting! I'd love to see a picture when you get back. Safe travels!

[Robtayham]

Originally Posted by marcusp23

Yes, practically speaking, you’re right. But that kind of argument doesn’t sit well with me or other consumers (the idea that a big company can screw their customers just because they’re bigger and have deeper pockets). There are other ways to get there, like class action lawsuits and customer complaints.

Who’s ‘screwing’ who? Rolex has a warranty, if a buyer doesn’t like it, then they don’t buy the watch. In reading this thread again, it’s a lot of speculation of what we wish the warranty would be: follows the watch, don’t have to have the card, the card can be tampered with and still be valid, and the ADs shouldn’t question us when we ask for warranty work to be done.

Unfortunately, we’re not the party writing the warranty.

Whatever the warranty actually covers (and I’ve yet to figure it out), if we don’t like it then we don’t buy the watch, or we don’t pay a premium.

[Jona]

Last year my AD offered me a 116500 which they had taken on trade. They blacked out the name on the warranty card presumably so I wouldn't know who had bought it, not that I would have cared a whit. (They told me the name anyway.) The AD assured me that they'd cover the watch for the full warranty period. I wasn't going to turn it down, and when it goes for service I'll get a new warranty anyway.

[EndlessEight]

If true, big blow for flippers.

Grays with back office deals with ADs will be fine.

[pkincy]

Originally Posted by RJRJRJ

They pretty much are doing their best to protect their sources by having the buyer contact them instead of their source. There is definitely an official warranty card out there that is valid with the watch.

I have always thought that is what happens. Big Greys like Prestige, Jomashop and Authentic don't give the warranty card but give their own 5 year warranty. They file away the card and if there is warranty work, once the watch is returned to them they pull the warranty card from the file and send it and the card to the RSC for warranty service.

[RJRJRJ]

Originally Posted by watchmaker

Since the issue of full vs limited warranties is predominantly a concern for those in the USA, can anyone with a US origin Rolex warranty booklet post the actual text Rolex are relying on? Would be interesting to see their wording.

Also, has anyone written to Rolex to get their formal statement on the matter? It’s all well and good debating whether or not the warranty follows the watch, but if Rolex USA say otherwise then is that not the end of the matter - just means the warranty is limited?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.