No warranty card with purchase?

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

To end all arguments here, I called Rolex USA in New York. I first started with customer service, expecting my question would need to be escalated to their legal department but there was no need to call anyone else.

I spoke to customer service representative "K" (if you want her real name, PM me) and asked about the warranty's transferability. She asked if the watch was originally purchased at an authorized dealer and I responded with a yes. The scenario i used was "If i bought a watch for my wife but she no longer wants it can I sell it without voiding the warranty? "K" said yes. She stated that as long as the watch was purchased from an authorized dealer and it is within the warranty period, the watch is covered. So i asked, "to be clear, the Rolex warranty is transerable." she said yes. She went on to say that the name of the person on the card DOES NOT need to match the owners name but you still need the warranty card.

Like I've said time and time again, these anecdotal stories of warranty service being denied because the current owner is not the original owner or the person named on the warranty card is BS. Someone decided to play lawyer for the day and failed. If it really happened, they were misinformed but it certainly doesn't make it true.

Bottom line: STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION. THE ROLEX WARRANTY IS TRANSFERABLE

PS- for those of you who still don't believe me, call for yourself 212.758.7700.

its apparent the stories of warranty claims being denied in the usa are a result of people showing up without original receipt of purchase to verify it was purchased from an AD. these stories do not come out of thin air. rolex USA was very clear that their ARE stipulations in order to honour a transferred warranty.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

where the confusion is happening is rolex international v.s rolex usa.

i just spoke with rolex canada(toronto) and under no circumstanses is the warranty transferrable. feel free to call and ask (416) 968-1100.

i than just got off the phone with rolex (newyork) and they said rolex WILL honour a warranty if its transferred as long as the watch was originally purchased from an AD AND that the ORIGINAL receipt of purchase from an AD accompanies the watch( therefore everytime the watch is sold withoin the 2 year warranty period the original receipt must me made available - this eliminates the 'grey dealer')

so your story left out the original receipt part. and it is NOT A MYTH that rolex will deny warrany claims on transferred ownership. there are stipulations that must be met.

rolex international and rolex usa have different policys

First, we are only talking about Rolex USA. Why on earth are you clouding the issue of Canada?

Second, I didn't leave anything out. Where in the warranty does it say that an original receipt must accompany the warranty? Nowhere. It's beginning to appear that you're just making stuff up along the way just so we can have, as you say, "a healthy debate". This isn't a debate let alone a healthy one.

If the original owner doesn't need an original receipt, either does the second, third or fourth owner.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

its apparent the stories of warranty claims being denied in the usa are a result of people showing up without original receipt of purchase to verify it was purchased from an AD. these stories do not come out of thin air. rolex USA was very clear that their ARE stipulations in order to honour a transferred warranty.

The stories of denial can only be one of two things. 1)Someone decided to read the warranty and misinterpreted it and made up the story to ad legitimacy to it or 2) False information was given by RSC to a customer who didn't know better and it became the understood norm.

Lets be clear before someone reads your post and misconstrues your opinion as fact. An original receipt is not needed for any part of the warranty or transfer of warranty. Please show some proof, other than your opinion, that an original receipt is required for transfer of warranty. I WILL PAY YOU $100 right now via paypal. This is not a car or a piece of real estate where transfer of ownership must be documented and registered. Its a freaking watch!

If RUSA told you that they will only service your watch on sunny days, does that make it true or does that stipulation need to be in writing on the warranty?

For the last and final time: ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS OF A WARRANTY MUST BE STATED ON THE WRITTEN WARRANTY.

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

First, we are only talking about Rolex USA. Why on earth are you clouding the issue of Canada?

Second, I didn't leave anything out. Where in the warranty does it say that an original receipt must accompany the warranty? Nowhere. It's beginning to appear that you're just making stuff up along the way just so we can have, as you say, "a healthy debate". This isn't a debate let alone a healthy one.

If the original owner doesn't need an original receipt, either does the second, third or fourth owner.

im just saying i called rolex NY as you suggested and this is what they said to me

i have nothing to gain by making something up

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

im just saying i called rolex NY as you suggested and this is what they said to me

i have nothing to gain by making something up

Right, so you were told but nothing in writing... which means absolutely nothing. The written warranty IS the prevailing document and it says nothing about an original receipt

I'm done

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

The stories of denial can only be one of two things. 1)Someone decided to read the warranty and misinterpreted it and made up the story to ad legitimacy to it or 2) False information was given by RSC to a customer who didn't know better and it became the understood norm.

Lets be clear before someone reads your post and misconstrues your opinion as fact. An original receipt is not needed for any part of the warranty or transfer of warranty. Please show some proof, other than your opinion, that an original receipt is required for transfer of warranty. I WILL PAY YOU $100 right now via paypal. This is not a car or a piece of real estate where transfer of ownership must be documented and registered. Its a freaking watch!

If RUSA told you that they will only service your watch on sunny days, does that make it true or does that stipulation need to be in writing on the warranty?

For the last and final time: ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS OF A WARRANTY MUST BE STATED ON THE WRITTEN WARRANTY.

i cant show verbal proof. i called rolex NY approx 1 hr ago and this is what i was told. i used the example " if i purchased a rolex from an AD and sold to a friend while still under warranty would the warranty be transferrable?". the answer i received was "yes, as long as the original receipt of purchase accompanies the watch to ensure it was sold from an AD"

i'll say it again. there ARE reasons why people have been denied. i dont work at rolex and rolex NY made it clear to me that rolex international and rolex usa have different policys

i can only tell you what they told me. you accuse me of making this up????. get a grip man. this is a rolex forum where we come to get information and answers.

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Right, so you were told but nothing in writing... which means absolutely nothing. The written warranty IS the prevailing document and it says nothing about an original receipt

I'm done

again, i dont think it has to. the written warranty is very clear that it pertains the the original purchaser. is rolex supposed to alter their warranty to cover the 10th buyer?

i agree. we are done. we will agree to disagree.

[Grissom]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

The stories of denial can only be one of two things. 1)Someone decided to read the warranty and misinterpreted it and made up the story to ad legitimacy to it or 2) False information was given by RSC to a customer who didn't know better and it became the understood norm.

Lets be clear before someone reads your post and misconstrues your opinion as fact. An original receipt is not needed for any part of the warranty or transfer of warranty. Please show some proof, other than your opinion, that an original receipt is required for transfer of warranty. I WILL PAY YOU $100 right now via paypal. This is not a car or a piece of real estate where transfer of ownership must be documented and registered. Its a freaking watch!

If RUSA told you that they will only service your watch on sunny days, does that make it true or does that stipulation need to be in writing on the warranty?

For the last and final time: ANY AND ALL LIMITATIONS OF A WARRANTY MUST BE STATED ON THE WRITTEN WARRANTY.

The warranty does state: "This warranty will be valid only if the watch was sold to the consumer by the Official Rolex Jeweler whose name appears on the face thereof."

The only way to establish this would be to present a copy of the bill of sale.

While Rolex may not exercise their right to see the original bill of sale along with a properly executed warranty card, they can do so anytime they so choose.

Do I get the $100.00?????

[Cyberintercept]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

To end all arguments here, I called Rolex USA in New York. I first started with customer service, expecting my question would need to be escalated to their legal department but there was no need to call anyone else.

I spoke to customer service representative "K" (if you want her real name, PM me) and asked about the warranty's transferability. She asked if the watch was originally purchased at an authorized dealer and I responded with a yes. The scenario i used was "If i bought a watch for my wife but she no longer wants it can I sell it without voiding the warranty? "K" said yes. She stated that as long as the watch was purchased from an authorized dealer and it is within the warranty period, the watch is covered. So i asked, "to be clear, the Rolex warranty is transerable." she said yes. She went on to say that the name of the person on the card DOES NOT need to match the owners name but you still need the warranty card.

Like I've said time and time again, these anecdotal stories of warranty service being denied because the current owner is not the original owner or the person named on the warranty card is BS. Someone decided to play lawyer for the day and failed. If it really happened, they were misinformed but it certainly doesn't make it true.

Bottom line: STOP SPREADING FALSE INFORMATION. THE ROLEX WARRANTY IS TRANSFERABLE

PS- for those of you who still don't believe me, call for yourself 212.758.7700.

Very well said. This should be stickied somewhere and referenced for all posts regarding Rolex USA warranties. Thanks for spending the time to do this.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Grissom

The warranty does state: "This warranty will be valid only if the watch was sold to the consumer by the Official Rolex Jeweler whose name appears on the face thereof."

The only way to establish this would be to present a copy of the bill of sale.

While Rolex may not exercise their right to see the original bill of sale along with a properly executed warranty card, they can do so anytime they so choose.

Do I get the $100.00?????

It says "a" consumer. Consumer, as defined by the Magnuson-Moss Act. It doesn't say the warranty covers the consumer, the warranty covers the watch or any product for that matter. In the context of this warranty, "whose name appears...", refers to the name of the AD.

Rolex can ask for a receipt until they are blue int he face, ask them where it says in their own warranty that it is a stipulation of warranty. The criteria for warranty validation is clearly written and original receipt is NOT one of them. I will go out on a limb and say that its probably because an AD is filling out the card and they should have record of original sale

So no, you don't get $100.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Richmond1958

+1 As a lawyer, I believe this is the best overall summary of the issue, at least under U.S. law, that I have read in the many postings on this topic. The practical advice given is also helpful as to how to manage an issue should one arise. If this would ever go to court, I think the transferee wins pretty easily provided they meet the other conditions including presenting the card to Rolex or to the AD.

Brianz72's issue is obviously a bit different ... he seems to have a brand new Sub (beautiful, btw!), probably functioning very well, but no warranty card. It does seem very unusual that he didn't receive the warranty card ... given that it does have a very snug location within the documentation portfolio ... so if I were him, I bug his friend who sold him the watch to really push the AD to produce the warranty card or that he will complain to Rolex (I assume the AD represented to the friend that this was a NIB watch when it was sold). If the issue exists where the card was sent separately by the AD, I assume the AD would speak up right away and say so, right? I would not let the friend get blown off by the AD on this point. I guess the good news is that the AD said they would take care of him if an issue ever arose, but the card is a valuable part of the package that comes with the watch and he should be entitled to it. If they cant find it, it cant be that difficult for Rolex to produce a duplicate card at the expense of the AD who presumably lost it to begin with.

Thank goodness, an attorney chimed in!

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Cyberintercept

Very well said. This should be stickied somewhere and referenced for all posts regarding Rolex USA warranties. Thanks for spending the time to do this.

Thank you. I was getting frustrated so I figured it was easier to just call to confirm what I've been saying all along

[Grissom]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

It says "a" consumer. Consumer, as defined by the Magnuson-Moss Act. It doesn't say the warranty covers the consumer, the warranty covers the watch or any product for that matter. In the context of this warranty, "whose name appears...", refers to the name of the AD.

Rolex can ask for a receipt until they are blue int he face, ask them where it says in their own warranty that it is a stipulation of warranty. The criteria for warranty validation is clearly written and original receipt is NOT one of them. I will go out on a limb and say that its probably because an AD is filling out the card and they should have record of original sale

So no, you don't get $100.

I'm not disagreeing with you (I don't think). I believe Rolex intends for the warranty to follow the watch. With regards to the Original Bill of Sale, Rolex evidently feels that they can ask for that as they do require that the names on the warranty be the names of both the original customer and the Authorized Dealer who sold the watch.....so correlating the receipt with the warranty will allow Rolex to ascertain that the watch was sold in a manner consistent with that which would validate the warranty.

I also spoke with a Supervisor at Rolex USA in NY and was also told that the warranty followed the watch, and to use her terminology, was "transferable", and that one merely needed to send in the watch along with the warranty. She told me that the only other requirement could be the request to see the original bill of sale, along with the properly executed warranty, and that absent any obvious abuse or misuse, the watch appearing to have been worked on by a non Rolex Authorized service provider, or the addition of any non rolex parts, who the current owner was would be irrelevant, with regards to obtaining warranty service. What she was quite clear about, however, was that Rolex reserves, at their discretion, the right to require a copy of the original bill of sale, in order to validate the warranty, and that without that, they could deny warranty service.

I wonder what Rolex USA is thinking, with so many calls coming in specifically about this issue!!

(And, I thought the $100 was for this particular fact, about the Original Bill of Sale. Darn!!! )

This should be made into a sticky, as has been suggested, in order to preclude these questions in the future.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Grissom

I'm not disagreeing with you (I don't think). I believe Rolex intends for the warranty to follow the watch. With regards to the Original Bill of Sale, Rolex evidently feels that they can ask for that as they do require that the names on the warranty be the names of both the original customer and the Authorized Dealer who sold the watch.....so correlating the receipt with the warranty will allow Rolex to ascertain that the watch was sold in a manner consistent with that which would validate the warranty.

I also spoke with a Supervisor at Rolex USA in NY and was also told that the warranty followed the watch, and to use her terminology, was "transferable", and that one merely needed to send in the watch along with the warranty. She told me that the only other requirement could be the request to see the original bill of sale, along with the properly executed warranty, and that absent any obvious abuse or misuse, the watch appearing to have been worked on by a non Rolex Authorized service provider, or the addition of any non rolex parts, who the current owner was would be irrelevant, with regards to obtaining warranty service. What she was quite clear about, however, was that Rolex reserves, at their discretion, the right to require a copy of the original bill of sale, in order to validate the warranty, and that without that, they could deny warranty service.

I wonder what Rolex USA is thinking, with so many calls coming in specifically about this issue!!

(And, I thought the $100 was for this particular fact, about the Original Bill of Sale. Darn!!! )

This should be made into a sticky, as has been suggested, in order to preclude these questions in the future.

It wouldn't surprise me if Rolex asked for the original receipt but my simple response would be to have them show you where, on the warranty, that it says an original receipt is required to validate the warranty or to transfer the warranty. If they add it to their warranty, it only applies to those who purchased the watch and receive the new warranty. Your serial number will tell them which warranty applies to your watch. Either way, the customer service person I spoke to said nothing about an original receipt and again, the warranty I have for two Rolexes says nothing of the sort.

I don't know how much more I can explain this before this comedy of ridiculous disagreement (fiction vs fact) turns ugly. There are some people arguing against it based on nothing more than misunderstood reading, rumors and assumptions. There are laws in the US that are intended to protect consumers. Warranty issues fall under the Maguson-Moss Act that is administered and policed by the FTC (that's the Federal Trade Commission for our Canadian friend who keeps popping in here with ridiculous additions to his argument each time he's proven wrong yet finishes with "agree to disagree" [?]). This law has been around since 1975 so if this is the first time the people arguing against me have ever heard of it, I can imagine how many times they've been ripped off by their car dealers, the refrigerator companies, the laundry machine manufactures and obviously watch manufacturers on top of everything else that is sold in this country. The law is not a secret, a google search will pop up a couple hundred references to it.

In this law, a warranty MUST clearly state, in a conspicuous manner, the details of the warranty--- everything that is included and excluded. There are no exceptions to this law. Rolex is a big company with lawyers that are more than capable of writing a simple warranty. There are no ambiguities or fine print double meanings in warranties. If a warranty is found to be ambiguous or unclear in anynway, the non-party to writing the warranty wins. Plain and simple.

[mhaedo]

I didn't really feel like reading this whole thread, so I called RSC NY and they told me that they honor the warranty for a second owner as long as it has a warranty card filled out by an authorized dealer.

I asked "So you don't immediately turn away my watch if my name does not match the name on the warranty card?" Her answer was "No. If it was purchased from an authorized dealer and the service needed is covered under warranty we will service it, regardless of the name on the card."

For the record, this post is not a direct response to anyone here. I don't want to get caught in the crossfire ;-)

New York, NY:
212-758-7700

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by mhaedo

I didn't really feel like reading this whole thread, so I called RSC NY and they told me that they honor the warranty for a second owner as long as it has a warranty card filled out by an authorized dealer.

I asked "So you don't immediately turn away my watch if my name does not match the name on the warranty card?" Her answer was "No. If it was purchased from an authorized dealer and the service needed is covered under warranty we will service it, regardless of the name on the card."

For the record, this post is not a direct response to anyone here. I don't want to get caught in the crossfire ;-)

New York, NY:
212-758-7700

It's exactly what I was told and is 100% in line with what ive been saying since I joined TRF

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

It wouldn't surprise me if Rolex asked for the original receipt but my simple response would be to have them show you where, on the warranty, that it says an original receipt is required to validate the warranty or to transfer the warranty. If they add it to their warranty, it only applies to those who purchased the watch and receive the new warranty. Your serial number will tell them which warranty applies to your watch. Either way, the customer service person I spoke to said nothing about an original receipt and again, the warranty I have for two Rolexes says nothing of the sort.

I don't know how much more I can explain this before this comedy of ridiculous disagreement (fiction vs fact) turns ugly. There are some people arguing against it based on nothing more than misunderstood reading, rumors and assumptions. There are laws in the US that are intended to protect consumers. Warranty issues fall under the Maguson-Moss Act that is administered and policed by the FTC (that's the Federal Trade Commission for our Canadian friend who keeps popping in here with ridiculous additions to his argument each time he's proven wrong yet finishes with "agree to disagree" [?]). This law has been around since 1975 so if this is the first time the people arguing against me have ever heard of it, I can imagine how many times they've been ripped off by their car dealers, the refrigerator companies, the laundry machine manufactures and obviously watch manufacturers on top of everything else that is sold in this country. The law is not a secret, a google search will pop up a couple hundred references to it.

In this law, a warranty MUST clearly state, in a conspicuous manner, the details of the warranty--- everything that is included and excluded. There are no exceptions to this law. Rolex is a big company with lawyers that are more than capable of writing a simple warranty. There are no ambiguities or fine print double meanings in warranties. If a warranty is found to be ambiguous or unclear in anynway, the non-party to writing the warranty wins. Plain and simple.

wow

relax super rolex man

its just a thread regarding warranty service. its a hotly debated issue on all other sites as well. no different than the AD discount debate. im simply not buying what your selling. i do believe that in some instances rolex can and will deny warranty claims from 2nd 3rd owners. im certainly entitled to my viewpoint and i am not ramming it down everyones throat like you are

now take a deep breath and relax. its just a watch.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

wow

relax super rolex man

its just a thread regarding warranty service. its a hotly debated issue on all other sites as well. no different than the AD discount debate. im simply not buying what your selling. i do believe that in some instances rolex can and will deny warranty claims from 2nd 3rd owners. im certainly entitled to my viewpoint and i am not ramming it down everyones throat like you are

now take a deep breath and relax. its just a watch.

Rolex man? This has less to do with Rolex and more to do with reading comprehension of a little warranty. The reason you keep coming back is because you think of this as a view point or opinion but its not. Just look at the facts, evidence and the law.

It is not a hotly debated topic. Its a myth that keeps perpetuating itself because people keep repeating it without merit. Its always a "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy..." scenario and its been debunked. The funny part of these threads about this warranty issue is that NOBODY has chimed in saying they're one of the actual people who have been turned away by RSC. From the way its discussed, there should be hundreds, perhaps thousands of these people but none come here to tell their story. I would love for someone to but it still hasn't happened. If it did, we can learn a little bit more about the circumstances but oh well...

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by rr-nyc

Rolex man man? This has less to do with Rolex and more to do with reading comprehension of a little warranty. The reason you keep coming back is because you think of this as a view point or opinion whereas I'm strictly keeping to facts, evidence and the law.

It is not a hotly debated topic. Its a myth. Its a "I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy..." scenario and its been debunked. The funny part of these threads about this warranty issue is that NOBODY has chimed in saying they're one of the actual people who have been turned away by RSC. From the way its discussed, there should be hundreds, perhaps thousands of these people but none come here to tell their story. I would love for someone to but it still hasn't happened. If it did, we can learn a little bit more about the circumstances but oh well...

not really. most warranty claims are probably done by 1st owners, 2 years isnt a long warranty period like omegas 3 and 4 year warrantys. i would really like rolex themselves to chime in or rolex forums.com use their clout to find out from rolex USA their exact stance. 4 people called rolex NY today and 2 of us got one response and 2 got the other. you seem to know rolex nyc well, pull some strings and get them to send you an email stating their policy regarding warranty work from 2nd owners. i may email them tonight and see what response i get as im confused as to why rolex NYC lied to me today based on your findings they probably wont reply but its worth a try. im sure theu wouldent want some dumb canadian hassling them over pre-owned rolexs!

anyways please dont get violent.

[Z-Sub]

Guys, let it go. You've made your points and experiences do differ from person to person. Maybe one of you should start a Warranty thread to further this discussion.

This thread was about warranty card that should not be missing from a sale and sounds like this might be (might NOT be as well )an AD who either lost the card or had a customer return and name is already written on the warranty and sold it as a new watch without giving the last buyer the warranty card. Pure speculation but not impossible. If the OP needs warranty work, RSC will not honor it without the card unless the AD or the owner can present the original receipt. From my positive experience with Rolex RSC, they would do minor things for you when you walk-in and take the wrist watch off your wrist without asking for the card. Chance of needing warranty for major mechanical break downs is really really small.

Let's hope they will locate the card eventually for the OP.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

4 people called rolex NY today and 2 of us got one response and 2 got the other.

By my count, four people claim to have called Rolex today, and three of them got results in line with what he is saying. You are the only one who claims to have called them and had them say otherwise.

And, just to throw my hat into the ring here, I inquired about this issue as well while I was visiting RSC Dallas a few months ago, and they corroborated it as well. So now it's 4 to 1. :-)

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by improviz

By my count, four people claim to have called Rolex today, and three of them got results in line with what he is saying. You are the only one who claims to have called them and had them say otherwise.

And, just to throw my hat into the ring here, I inquired about this issue as well while I was visiting RSC Dallas a few months ago, and they corroborated it as well. So now it's 4 to 1. :-)

nope....grissom was told as well. reread his post about 5 back

anyways this horse has been beat to death. lively threads are healthy and its nice to see the passion we all have for our rolex watches.

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by improviz

By my count, four people claim to have called Rolex today, and three of them got results in line with what he is saying. You are the only one who claims to have called them and had them say otherwise.

And, just to throw my hat into the ring here, I inquired about this issue as well while I was visiting RSC Dallas a few months ago, and they corroborated it as well. So now it's 4 to 1. :-)

why you keeping count?!!!!!!!!

and yes i did call. apparently im being lied to. i was told exactly what grissom was told except in his instance he was told "they may" ask for a bill of sale. in my case i was told "a bill of sale would be necessary"

do us all a favour and reread the threads. take sides if you must but this never was about who had the biggest ****. it was about getting answers and why is rolex so unclear about their policys.

damn. i kicked that dead horse again

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by Grissom

I'm not disagreeing with you (I don't think). I believe Rolex intends for the warranty to follow the watch. With regards to the Original Bill of Sale, Rolex evidently feels that they can ask for that as they do require that the names on the warranty be the names of both the original customer and the Authorized Dealer who sold the watch.....so correlating the receipt with the warranty will allow Rolex to ascertain that the watch was sold in a manner consistent with that which would validate the warranty.

I also spoke with a Supervisor at Rolex USA in NY and was also told that the warranty followed the watch, and to use her terminology, was "transferable", and that one merely needed to send in the watch along with the warranty. She told me that the only other requirement could be the request to see the original bill of sale, along with the properly executed warranty, and that absent any obvious abuse or misuse, the watch appearing to have been worked on by a non Rolex Authorized service provider, or the addition of any non rolex parts, who the current owner was would be irrelevant, with regards to obtaining warranty service. What she was quite clear about, however, was that Rolex reserves, at their discretion, the right to require a copy of the original bill of sale, in order to validate the warranty, and that without that, they could deny warranty service.

I wonder what Rolex USA is thinking, with so many calls coming in specifically about this issue!!

(And, I thought the $100 was for this particular fact, about the Original Bill of Sale. Darn!!! )

This should be made into a sticky, as has been suggested, in order to preclude these questions in the future.

for improvisez.

apparently all kinds of lies going on today at rolex NYC. i will be asking for an email from them stating their position in writing. i dont care about the law i want rolexs position on the matter in writing. i wasnt bored today and decided to make stuff up!!!lol

only rolex

[improviz]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

why you keeping count?!!!!!!!!

I counted them to correct your claim that someone else had gotten the same results that you said you got.

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

and yes i did call. apparently im being lied to. i was told exactly what grissom was told except in his instance he was told "they may" ask for a bill of sale. in my case i was told "a bill of sale would be necessary"

In my book "might" isn't "exactly" the same as "will", and further, grissom also said that the lady he spoke with was pretty clear that they intended for the warranty to follow the watch:

Originally Posted by Grissom

I also spoke with a Supervisor at Rolex USA in NY and was also told that the warranty followed the watch, and to use her terminology, was "transferable", and that one merely needed to send in the watch along with the warranty. She told me that the only other requirement could be the request to see the original bill of sale, along with the properly executed warranty, and that absent any obvious abuse or misuse, the watch appearing to have been worked on by a non Rolex Authorized service provider, or the addition of any non rolex parts, who the current owner was would be irrelevant, with regards to obtaining warranty service. What she was quite clear about, however, was that Rolex reserves, at their discretion, the right to require a copy of the original bill of sale, in order to validate the warranty, and that without that, they could deny warranty service.

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

do us all a favour and reread the threads. take sides if you must but this never was about who had the biggest ****. it was about getting answers and why is rolex so unclear about their policys.

damn. i kicked that dead horse again

I did read it. Of the four people who called, only you stated that a purchase receipt WOULD be required, one said it MIGHT be, and the other two reported said it was not. So my statement that you were the only one who reported these results was honest and accurate, thank you very much.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

for improvisez.

apparently all kinds of lies going on today at rolex NYC. i will be asking for an email from them stating their position in writing. i dont care about the law i want rolexs position on the matter in writing. i wasnt bored today and decided to make stuff up!!!lol

only rolex

The law is the law, and if Rolex were in violation of it, people could certainly report this to the FTC, and take other steps to get it rectified. Fortunately, they are normally reliable enough to where this is rarely an issue in any event.

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by improviz

I counted them to correct your claim that someone else had gotten the same results that you said you got.



In my book "might" isn't "exactly" the same as "will", and further, grissom also said that the lady he spoke with was pretty clear that they intended for the warranty to follow the watch:





I did read it. Of the four people who called, only you stated that a purchase receipt WOULD be required, one said it MIGHT be, and the other two reported said it was not. So my statement that you were the only one who reported these results was honest and accurate, thank you very much.

wow. beat it. grissoms post i pasted verified he got the same response i did. im not sure what point your trying to make?

yes i was told a receipt of purchase would be required. dont get mad at me get mad at the person at rolex nyc who according to you and some others lied to me. ??? how hard is this to understand? grissom below was told the same thing just in a different context.


Originally Posted by Grissom
I also spoke with a Supervisor at Rolex USA in NY and was also told that the warranty followed the watch, and to use her terminology, was "transferable", and that one merely needed to send in the watch along with the warranty. She told me that the only other requirement could be the request to see the original bill of sale, along with the properly executed warranty, and that absent any obvious abuse or misuse, the watch appearing to have been worked on by a non Rolex Authorized service provider, or the addition of any non rolex parts, who the current owner was would be irrelevant, with regards to obtaining warranty service. What she was quite clear about, however, was that Rolex reserves, at their discretion, the right to require a copy of the original bill of sale, in order to validate the warranty, and that without that, they could deny warranty service.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by swiss ghost

wow. beat it. grissoms post i pasted verified he got the same response i did. im not sure what point your trying to make?

Um, no, read it again as you're fond of saying. You reported their saying that in additional to the warranty card, an original receipt ***IS*** required to receive warranty service, while grissom reported their saying that it ***COULD*** be required, at Rolex's discretion. Big difference.

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by improviz

The law is the law, and if Rolex were in violation of it, people could certainly report this to the FTC, and take other steps to get it rectified. Fortunately, they are normally reliable enough to where this is rarely an issue in any event.

agreed. im just not about to take what someone says on a forum at face value. i want rolexes response and a clear answer. i intend to get these answers as its unacceptable that rolex employs people who cannot give a straight answer.

rolex is so big they dont care about some dude in his sub wanting to take them to court. the guy with the sub would spend much more $$$ than he paid for his sub just waiting to get the case heard and paying for a lawyer. that said they are also so big that they are not going to screw someone over for the sake of screwing them over. im pretty sure if rolex denys a warranty claim they are entitled to do so

as for this act 1975 ? i read it, the act covers many types of warrantys and only one small section covers whats being referred to in this thread yet i dont think that small section applies to rolex, i believe they fall under another section of that act. i dont care about keyboard lawyers. i care about rolexes stance. rolex will not take a stance that is illegal in the united states. if rolex says they may request a receipt than my guess is they are in their full legal right to do so

[swiss ghost]

Originally Posted by improviz

Um, no, read it again as you're fond of saying. You reported their saying that in additional to the warranty card, an original receipt ***IS*** required to receive warranty service, while grissom reported their saying that it ***COULD*** be required, at Rolex's discretion. Big difference.

yes i was told it IS required and grissom was told it COULD be requested if they wanted and if it wasnt shown service could be denied

its the same thing. i may have spoken to someone else. point is i wasnt the only one told about a receipt being required or possibly required!!!