Rolex warranty -- transferable or not?

[greg788]

Is the Rolex warranty on a watch purchased from an AD transferable?

RSC in New York told me today that it's not. I thought it was -- a lot of TRF sellers state that it is, for example, on a very late model watch.

[sleddog]

Officialy it's NOT!!
Some AD's will do it if you know them well.....

[Andad]

Greg,

This has been discussed many time on TRF and no correct answer has been given IMO.

I purchased a Rolex for my wife. The purchase and paperwork is in my name as the buyer. If there was ever a problem with it would my wife be refused warranty on it?
How many Rolex watches are purchased as gifts for family, friends, employees, competition winners etc etc? Would Rolex refuse warranty on these watches because the 'owners' name was not the name on the card?
Within the warranty period Rolex would have a problem refusing warranty on their watches.

[psv]

I think this is BS by Rolex, the warranty should be attached to the watch, not the buyer. I have no glowing admiration for Panerai but at least they do it the right way by honoring any service request within the warranty period.

I assume that it could become overwhelming in Rolex's case as they produce over 700,000 per year.

[Carlos98326194]

What about for warranty card with name field still blank?

[HL65]

Again--this has been answered a bunch of times on TRF. I can tell you technically no--but I have never had an AD say no or be charged within the warranty time--by the way same goes for other high end watches--never had an issue.

[Watch Professor]

I called NY and they said no, they will not honor the warranty. I called Dallas, and they said that they warraty the watch, not the person. So it seems that Dallas will, NY won't.

[springbar]

The Rolex Warranty Booklet lists two conditions that must be met in order for the warranty to be valid:

1) "the watch was sold to a consumer by the Official ROLEX Jeweler whose name appears on the warranty card." In other words, the watch must have been sold at retail by an AD to a consumer. It doesn't stipulate that the person seeking warranty service must be the original retail consumer.

2) "the warranty card is completely filled out by the Official ROLEX Jeweler at the time of purchase..." Again, they're just requiring that it be a retail sale. They don't want ADs wholesaling watches with blank warranty cards to distributors. "...This warranty is void if there is any intervention by a third party, or if the watch is modified by the addition or substitution of parts or accessories not supplied by Rolex."

One might take the vague "third party" line to mean that the warranty isn't transferable (any lawyers in the house?) However, most warranties that apply to the original retail purchaser only just come right out and say so. But Rolex's doesn't.

I'd like to see a real legal cite before we assume an answer to this question one way or the other. And big thumbs down to Rolex for writing such an unclear warranty book.

[springbar]

Originally Posted by Carlos98326194

What about for warranty card with name field still blank?

The booklet claims that the card must have been filled out at the time of purchase for the warranty to be valid. I don't know if they check this against their own records.

[Tools]

No need to guess.. This is exactly what it says..



Intervention by a third party would seem to mean any reseller... It could also mean that if you bought the watch from the original buyer, you are a third party...

[bodybump]

Originally Posted by Carlos98326194

What about for warranty card with name field still blank?

You cannot send a warranty card that is blank to RSC...It has to be filled up no matter what...

[springbar]

Originally Posted by Tools

No need to guess.. This is exactly what it says..

In this case knowing exactly what's written in the booklet doesn't really eliminate the need to guess, because it's written so poorly.

Even the RSCs, it would appear, disagree on exactly what the booklet means.

The terms and conditions should be described in clear and unambiguous language. The audience for that little green pamphlet are wristwatch owners, after all - not contract lawyers.

The transferability of a warranty is basic stuff that everyone wants to know and should be stated as plainly as the term.

[GregWormald]

Where does it say that the person claiming the warranty has to be the person on the certificate?

(In Australia the warranty is from the retailer first--and there is no need to fill in certificates!)

Greg

[Carlos98326194]

Originally Posted by bodybump

You cannot send a warranty card that is blank to RSC...It has to be filled up no matter what...

That's the point. So the 2nd or 3rd or even 4th owner and so on... of the watch (as long as within 2 yrs of warranty) can fill in their name before sending it to RSC. Hope I am making a case here.

Companies will always have their so called "Guidelines or Standard of Procedures"
But as how most guidelines was designed... they always leaves a part where you can deviate, override and seek Approval from higher management if things get out of hand or if that is someone or a somebody that you have to or need give a favor to.
They will usually have a part where it states that " The company reserves the right to accept or refuse in case blah blah..."





Maybe I am just so stressed of doing all this Terms and Condition,reading Guidelines and Procedural manual lately....

[prince-110]

I've been asked a question about warranty of a rolex I'm selling which was bought in December 2012, do I say it has its remaining warranty? who honours the warranty? a local AD or only RSC?

[T. Ferguson]

If Rolex was not accepting warranty work on subsequent owners it would be a much bigger stink on here than there is, probably a thread a day at least.

As far as the vague wording of interventions by third parties perhaps pertaining to the watch having been bought by a dealer, how is Rolex to know this as long as there is an individuals name on the card? Now, if the watch was acquired by a reseller from an AD, and they knew it, then technically they could refuse service. But if it was purchased by a consumer (i.e. bought and given as a gift) then they have no legal basis to refuse service. There are tons of Rolexes acquired as gifts. Also note that under this part of the warranty it only says the AD's name must appear on the card. It notably omits any requirement that the individual requesting the warranty work must have his name on it. It also notably says the watch was sold to "a" consumer, and not "the" consumer.

As far as NY refusing but not Dallas, just send it to Dallas. But from a legal standpoint NYC has no basis to refuse warranty service to a subsequent owner on a watch that otherwise qualifies for warranty service. By US law (Magnuson Moss Warranty Act) a full warranty MUST cover subsequent owners. And the Rolex warranty is clearly labeled as a full warranty, not a limited warranty, and nothing else in the warranty would make it limited.

[Cc1966]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

If Rolex was not accepting warranty work on subsequent owners it would be a much bigger stink on here than there is, probably a thread a day at least.

As far as the vague wording of interventions by third parties perhaps pertaining to the watch having been bought by a dealer, how is Rolex to know this as long as there is an individuals name on the card? Now, if the watch was acquired by a reseller from an AD, and they knew it, then technically they could refuse service. But if it was purchased by a consumer (i.e. bought and given as a gift) then they have no legal basis to refuse service. There are tons of Rolexes acquired as gifts. Also note that under this part of the warranty it only says the AD's name must appear on the card. It notably omits any requirement that the individual requesting the warranty work must have his name on it. It also notably says the watch was sold to "a" consumer, and not "the" consumer.

As far as NY refusing but not Dallas, just send it to Dallas. But from a legal standpoint NYC has no basis to refuse warranty service to a subsequent owner on a watch that otherwise qualifies for warranty service. By US law (Magnuson Moss Warranty Act) a full warranty MUST cover subsequent owners. And the Rolex warranty is clearly labeled as a full warranty, not a limited warranty, and nothing else in the warranty would make it limited.

Thanks for this, first clear answer IMHO.

[Sub4Life]

When I spoke with Vivian from Dallas RSC a few months ago when my Sub-C LV had to be sent in for warranty work, she specifically stated that the warranty follows the watch, not the person.

As for NYC RSC they can go where the sun doesn't shine for all I care.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by T. Ferguson

If Rolex was not accepting warranty work on subsequent owners it would be a much bigger stink on here than there is, probably a thread a day at least.

As far as the vague wording of interventions by third parties perhaps pertaining to the watch having been bought by a dealer, how is Rolex to know this as long as there is an individuals name on the card? Now, if the watch was acquired by a reseller from an AD, and they knew it, then technically they could refuse service. But if it was purchased by a consumer (i.e. bought and given as a gift) then they have no legal basis to refuse service. There are tons of Rolexes acquired as gifts. Also note that under this part of the warranty it only says the AD's name must appear on the card. It notably omits any requirement that the individual requesting the warranty work must have his name on it. It also notably says the watch was sold to "a" consumer, and not "the" consumer.

As far as NY refusing but not Dallas, just send it to Dallas. But from a legal standpoint NYC has no basis to refuse warranty service to a subsequent owner on a watch that otherwise qualifies for warranty service. By US law (Magnuson Moss Warranty Act) a full warranty MUST cover subsequent owners. And the Rolex warranty is clearly labeled as a full warranty, not a limited warranty, and nothing else in the warranty would make it limited.

Spot on and in perfect agreement with analyses conducted by some of our resident legal eagles. See:
http://www.rolexforums.com/showthread.php?t=220982

[arabesque]

"...This warranty is void if there is any intervention by a third party, or if the watch is modified by the addition or substitution of parts or accessories not supplied by Rolex."

IMO, *intervention by a third party* means it was taken prior to an unauthorized repair facility, thus voiding the warranty. It has nothing to do with a third party seller and/or buyer.

As long as the Authorized Dealer affixed his stamp and is within the covered date, it has warranty... how I read it.

[Billywiz]

Originally Posted by SteelerFan65

Again--this has been answered a bunch of times on TRF. I can tell you technically no--but I have never had an AD say no or be charged within the warranty time--by the way same goes for other high end watches--never had an issue.

X2...My experience also.

[PGAPRO]

Well I live in Dallas, and when I purchase a new watch, First place it goes is to the RSC. I know Vivian, and she's correct, warr follows the watch. She did caution on one thing, always have a name on the warr card or papers, if not, they ask why the Dealer didn't fill out the paperwork, evidently a big big no no from an AD. I got my watch done, but they literally picked up the phone and chewed them out, in front of me. Wow. But true story. Just sayin.

[azguy]

odds are 99.99999% you'll not need the warranty before it expires....It's mind blowing NY and Dallas give different opinions on this..

[Racerdj]

I called Rolex NY (last week) and customer service told me that my Daytona is covered by the 2 year warranty since it was purchased by an individual from an AD. This is important as the watch is only 6 weeks into the warranty period. I told them I was the second owner too. Sorry I do not have the name of the CS rep.

[sqy0h]

I did a little research and it looks like the Warranty should be full-transferable. I found this information on the FTC's website.

What the Terms "Full" and "Limited" Mean

Determining whether your warranty is a "full" or a "limited" warranty is not difficult. If each of the following five statements is true about your warranty's terms and conditions, it is a "full" warranty:

You do not limit the duration of implied warranties.
You provide warranty service to anyone who owns the product during the warranty period; that is, you do not limit coverage to first purchasers.
You provide warranty service free of charge, including such costs as returning the product or removing and reinstalling the product when necessary.
You provide, at the consumer's choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product.
You do not require consumers to perform any duty as a precondition for receiving service, except notifying you that service is needed, unless you can demonstrate that the duty is reasonable.
If any of these statements is not true, then your warranty is "limited".

You are not required to make your entire warranty "full" or "limited" If the statements above are true about the coverage on only some parts of your product, or if the statements are true about the coverage during only one part of the warranty period, then your warranty is a multiple warranty that is part full and part limited.

As TOOLS posted a copy of the Warranty above titled Full Two-Year Warranty, it would seem that they are required by federal law to honor the warranty. Otherwise, Rolex could be fraudulently labeling their warranty as Full when it is really limited which could be a serious legal problem since the Magnusen-Moss Act requires manufacturers to declare whether the warranty is full or limited and then comply with the guidelines regulating each.

I would highly suggest anyone who has been turned away for legitimate warranty service to present this information to Rolex before opening a court case against them.

FYI, I found this information here: http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bu...ty-law#titling

[improviz]

Originally Posted by azguy

odds are 99.99999% you'll not need the warranty before it expires....It's mind blowing NY and Dallas give different opinions on this..

In my case it was 16.7% that I would: one of my Exp iis died with a month or two worth of factory warranty remaining and is being tended to as we speak (well, type), so having that warranty saved me hundred$...