Voiding warranty

[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

[quakeroatmeal]

So my question after reading all these posts...

If a grey sells you a watch and they say "majority of warranty still remaining" and you get that watch, and go get something done under warranty, can the grey get in trouble for false advertising?

I've always operated under the assumption that the warranty follows the watch, I'm guessing this was wrong!