ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
21 May 2016, 12:31 AM | #31 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Real Name: Alex
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Watch: GMT 16710 w/ 3186
Posts: 8,411
|
Bring it to your AD and ask them to ship to RSC. Never had issues being 2nd 3rd 4th owner of many watches
__________________
GMT Master II 16710 w/3186 "M" Coke SeaDweller 16600 "M" |
21 May 2016, 02:07 AM | #32 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
Quote:
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".
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
|
21 May 2016, 02:51 AM | #33 | |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
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. |
|
21 May 2016, 02:53 AM | #34 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 42,017
|
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
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
21 May 2016, 02:55 AM | #35 | |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
Is Rolex Warranty Transferrable?
Quote:
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 |
|
21 May 2016, 03:06 AM | #36 |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
|
21 May 2016, 03:14 AM | #37 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
|
21 May 2016, 03:57 AM | #38 |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 42,017
|
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
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
21 May 2016, 05:00 AM | #39 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
|
|
21 May 2016, 05:31 AM | #40 | |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
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 |
|
21 May 2016, 05:33 AM | #41 | |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
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? |
|
21 May 2016, 05:52 AM | #42 |
2024 Pledge Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Real Name: Steven
Location: Glocal
Posts: 21,196
|
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.
__________________
__________________ ----> Was Great Seeing Everyone At The TRF December 9 Tampa Meetup <---- https://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=968133 Love timepieces and want to become a Watchmaker? Rolex has a sensational school. www.RolexWatchmakingTrainingCenter.com/ Sent from my Etch A Sketch using String Theory. |
21 May 2016, 05:59 AM | #43 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 199
|
Quote:
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”. |
|
21 May 2016, 06:46 AM | #44 | |
Liar & Ratbag
Join Date: Nov 2009
Real Name: Renato
Location: NYC / Miami Beach
Watch: Rolex Daytona
Posts: 5,344
|
Quote:
|
|
27 May 2016, 12:54 PM | #45 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2016
Real Name: Modee
Location: California
Watch: Rolex 228206
Posts: 224
|
Quote:
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. |
|
29 May 2016, 03:13 AM | #46 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 7,025
|
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.
__________________
Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints. |
29 May 2016, 03:52 AM | #47 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Cambridge, NY
Posts: 1,089
|
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!
|
29 May 2016, 03:58 AM | #48 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Real Name: Yannis
Location: Europe
Watch: maniac
Posts: 9,070
|
Warranty should follow the watch and should not end with the ownership of the first owner. That would be outrageous.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.