FYI... PP 2 yr. warranty is non transferable to the second owner.

[kneedeep]

Originally Posted by HorologyK

Rolex makes an outstanding product.

As does PP. Both also make some lemons as no manufacturing process for complex machines that i know of is 100% defect free. Where Rolex wins hands down is with its 5 year transferable warranty.

[HorologyK]

Originally Posted by kneedeep

As does PP. Both also make some lemons as no manufacturing process for complex machines that i know of is 100% defect free. Where Rolex wins hands down is with its 5 year transferable warranty.

Let's just say Pat and I are on a first name basis and leave it at that.

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by texex91

We have an email from the head of PP US customer care--a gentleman most of us know as reputable...very.

Would love to see PP Geneva email (like Martin received from US) stating what you are claiming.

What one person says, or hearsay is not worth much when it comes to actually filing a claim in the US.

IN writing and we can go from there...just get the Geneva person to put into an email you can copy.

Simple--we will all await.

I gotta say that when Andy says he got that confirmation from Geneva as he said in his thread I believe him!!!! As you don't perhaps he can respond to you directly

[toucan]

Originally Posted by KarlS

I gotta say that when Andy says he got that confirmation from Geneva as he said in his thread I believe him!!!! As you don't perhaps he can respond to you directly

That doesn't really help if you live in the US and go to HSWA or send your watch in and they refuse your warranty.
I'm sure they will accept- well Andy heard from his friend in Geneva blah blah NYC will do what they want.

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by toucan

That doesn't really help if you live in the US and go to HSWA or send your watch in and they refuse your warranty.
I'm sure they will accept- well Andy heard from his friend in Geneva blah blah NYC will do what they want.

I never said it would help and much as it appears various distributors have different rules this may be one of them. Remember all the excitement over the UK keeping papers for 2 years???? That is why I asked OP if he has written to Geneva. If it's wrong they will tell HWSA to toe the line, if it's true and actually applicable to PP globally then they need to advertise this fact so that preowned purchasers do so as informed consumers...

[texex91]

Originally Posted by KarlS

I gotta say that when Andy says he got that confirmation from Geneva as he said in his thread I believe him!!!! As you don't perhaps he can respond to you directly

What I'm saying Karl, is if there is an issue, one cannot say, hey I heard from a guy on the forum.

Would be nice to have something in writing from Geneva--at the very least to show HSWA.

Seems like there is a disconnect between the two.

[KarlS]

This email I received a few minutes ago from the U.K. Distributor. I said distributor not AD and Diane is in charge of customer service. I guess like Pat!!

Dear Karl

Thank you for your email.

For the UK we would always honour the 24 month Product Warranty as in my opinion the warranty should go with the Watch and not the owner, however I will ask Geneva the question also and come back to you to ensure I am providing the correct information.l

This is a reply to my email (so there is no misunderstanding)
Dear Diane
Another ugly one rearing its head on social media concerning g the transferability of the PP warranty within the 2 year period.


It appears HSWA is not honouring a warranty repair as the current owner differs from that in the papers. Paper properly stamped by AD but he bought the watch from the owner and thought he had time left on the warranty. Pat at HWSA is adamant that the 2 year warranty only applies to the initial purchaser of the watch and not his successors. This raises some interesting questions:


A). Does the warranty follow the watch or initial purchaser and is thus not transferable (if so the the CoO should clearly state this to avoid ambiguity;
B). A preowned watch at a PP AD would thus suffer the same problem as papers would not be reissued. Thus would kill any trade in values
C). If a watch is given to me as a gift then names would be different etc
D). I am sure this now becomes a limited warranty with all the legal ramifications and consumer protection issues.


Could you confirm the official stance so that I can make an informed opinion.

[toucan]

Originally Posted by KarlS

I never said it would help and much as it appears various distributors have different rules this may be one of them. Remember all the excitement over the UK keeping papers for 2 years???? That is why I asked OP if he has written to Geneva. If it's wrong they will tell HWSA to toe the line, if it's true and actually applicable to PP globally then they need to advertise this fact so that preowned purchasers do so as informed consumers...

Agreed!

[KarlS]

Originally Posted by toucan

Agreed!

As we await Geneva. Ignoring what AD's say the distributor score is:

🇺🇸Patek 👎

🇬🇧 Patek 👍

🇨🇭 Patek -

Cheers

[Passionata]

Originally Posted by KarlS

As we await Geneva. Ignoring what AD's say the distributor score is:

🇺🇸Patek 👎

🇬🇧 Patek 👍

🇨🇭 Patek -

Cheers

does it called transparent company policy?

[AK797]

Come on, the GB!

[martinr]

I wonder how a retailer and AD (Govberg for example) would handle this warranty issue. They sell preowned Patek and offer a 15 month Govberg warranty. If I buy a preowned from them and sell it six months later does the person that bought it from me get the remaining nine months of warranty?

[enjoythemusic]

I called Patek NYC H Stern, they ARE NOT honoring the two year warranty if you are the second owner.

Sorry guys and gals, and it deeply saddens me as i remember decades ago when David J and Francine were so wonderful that I'd visit H Stern just to say hi and talk. Times they are changing, and appears not for the better :(

[martinr]

As long as we're talking about what the certificate says or doesn't say it would be nice if it stated when the watch was made, in addition to when it was sold.

[Tony64]

Originally Posted by martinr

As long as we're talking about what the certificate says or doesn't say it would be nice if it stated when the watch was made, in addition to when it was sold.

The older certificates all provided that information. Not sure why they stopped, seems like it was around 2008-2009 iirc.

[enjoythemusic]

At this point in time, Patek is doing many things that make no sense, and so it would be prudent for them to release a statement to their actions. For the time being, i wouldn't buy a Patek unless it is at least 40% discount to reduce the risk exposure.

[kilyung]

Glad all mine are in my name!

[PJ S]

Referring to the ftc.gov link I posted in my first comment on page 1 – #7 – and in response to a remark made on PuristS…

If your warranty contains a provision that restricts who has rights under the warranty, you must include a statement explaining specifically who is covered. For example, if your limited warranty is valid only for the first purchaser, your warranty must state that. Note that this applies only to limited warranties. A full warranty must cover anyone who owns the product during the period of coverage, as discussed on page 10.

If your warranty contains a provision that requires your customers to use a dispute resolution mechanism before suing under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act for breach of warranty, you must include:
a statement informing consumers that they can sue under state law without first using the mechanism, but that before suing under the Magnuson-Moss Act, they must first try to resolve the dispute through the mechanism; and
information and materials about the dispute mechanism, including the name and address or a toll-free telephone number, or a form for filing a claim.

By my estimation, and Marciano can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe HSWA (and Patek too, by association or ownership) are royally screwed!

[texex91]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Referring to the ftc.gov link I posted in my first comment on page 1 – #7 – and in response to a remark made on PuristS…



By my estimation, and Marciano can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe HSWA (and Patek too, by association or ownership) are royally screwed!

Who needs this mess when buying a watch

US says one thing, Geneva another (pending), UK another, Asia (who knows).

I kinda just like buying a watch and selling it when the hell I want and not worry about warranty issues.

IN this case I think you are correct PJ.

[thomaspp]

Originally Posted by texex91

Who needs this mess when buying a watch

US says one thing, Geneva another (pending), UK another, Asia (who knows).

I kinda just like buying a watch and selling it when the hell I want and not worry about warranty issues.

IN this case I think you are correct PJ.

No crap.... this is just ridiculous man. Sad and pathetic... Didn't want to believe the warranty nontransferability but now confirmed by a bunch of folks.

[Marciano490]

Originally Posted by PJ S

Referring to the ftc.gov link I posted in my first comment on page 1 – #7 – and in response to a remark made on PuristS…



By my estimation, and Marciano can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe HSWA (and Patek too, by association or ownership) are royally screwed!

Just skimmed the Act. It doesn't apply to service costs. Only the costs of replacement parts, which I imagine Patek can designate as a nullity.

[Dancing Fire]

Originally Posted by KarlS

Have you written to Geneva? Cheers

Hi Karl

No,not yet. I can't find their Email address, but since you have already written to Geneva we'll hear what they have to say after they reply to your Email.

[PJ S]

Originally Posted by Marciano490

Just skimmed the Act. It doesn't apply to service costs. Only the costs of replacement parts, which I imagine Patek can designate as a nullity.

I’m not sure if I get your point.
The part which I've emboldened, states that if a warranty is limited to the original purchaser only (which is what HSWA are using for rejecting some claims), then it must be clearly stated.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record…none of the information available online (and presumed duplicated in physical copies of the Instructions For Use) indicates that HSWA have complied with that requirement – and it is a requirement when a written warranty is in place, and is limited, otherwise there’s a full or part full warranty in effect.

So I’m not seeing how that tallies with what you’ve suggested HSWA can do in regards to replacement parts.
And just to be sure we’re not going off on a bit of a tangent, the above relates to the fact that HSWA have stated that the warranty is non-transferable, and therefore only benefiting the named individual on the CoO.

[KarlS]

HSWA must have honored warranties like this in the previouss 12 years or this would have surfaced on various forums before. Maybe it's because the company is owned by the sterns versus the rest of the world where it's not. Perhaps Asia etc etc will accept warranty claims as the watch gets shipped off to Geneva for repair (they don't check the CoO when it arrives!!). Fortunately despite all the indignation the OP is remarkably restrained! Cheers

[Marciano490]

Originally Posted by PJ S

I’m not sure if I get your point.
The part which I've emboldened, states that if a warranty is limited to the original purchaser only (which is what HSWA are using for rejecting some claims), then it must be clearly stated.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record…none of the information available online (and presumed duplicated in physical copies of the Instructions For Use) indicates that HSWA have complied with that requirement – and it is a requirement when a written warranty is in place, and is limited, otherwise there’s a full or part full warranty in effect.

So I’m not seeing how that tallies with what you’ve suggested HSWA can do in regards to replacement parts.
And just to be sure we’re not going off on a bit of a tangent, the above relates to the fact that HSWA have stated that the warranty is non-transferable, and therefore only benefiting the named individual on the CoO.

An Act or statute only applies insofar as it purports to apply. If you pulled a statute governing car warranties then tried to apply it to boats it'd be irrelevant. The Act you cited doesn't cover warranties related to service expenses so the language you pulled wouldn't affect anything but warranties to cover the expense for replacement parts. How much is a mainspring?

[PJ S]

^
I apologise for expecting you to verify my previous comment even though Consumer law is not your field of expertise – but I thought the quoted text was self explanatory.

I don’t know why the discussion has shifted to involving service expenses, nor how cars and boats have come into it, but without wishing to teach a lawyer how to suck eggs, are you under an impression that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act only pertains to the automotive industry?
I can’t believe that you do, and am presuming you are therefore aware that it pertains to all consumer items with a retail value of $10 and over.
I further presume that you also understand that manufacturers are not obliged to provide a written warranty, but by choosing to do so, then it must comply with the requirements laid out in the Act.

The M-M W Act allows for warranties to be Limited, Full, or Mixed, and in the case of a Full warranty, the terms apply to whomever is the legal owner of the product at the time a claim is made.
If the warranty is Mixed or Limited, and one of the limitations is restricting who benefits from having recourse to the warranty, namely that of the first owner only, then this limitation must be stated clearly and unambiguously within the terms of the warranty.

Broken record time…thus far, I have found no evidence to support that such a limitation has ever been documented.

Just so as we’re on the same page, ALL of this MUST be in place, long before an owner steps foot inside HSWA with their faulty watch in hand, and handing over their photocopy of the CoO with the first owner’s name on it.

[conkers]

Originally Posted by Tony64

The older certificates all provided that information. Not sure why they stopped, seems like it was around 2008-2009 iirc.

The extract from the archives still gives you this information. It is available as soon as the watch is 5 years old.

[KarlS]

And here is the answer from Switzerland:

Dear karl

I am very pleased to confirm that I have been in contact with Geneva and they confirm that the warranty is with the watch and not the owner.

🇺🇸Patek 👎

🇬🇧 Patek 👍

🇨🇭 Patek 👍

[KarlS]

Here is my suggestion to Geneva:

Dear
Thank you very much for your prompt attention. Could I ask that they be directed to that web link as there is a disconnect with their subsidiary HSWA. Kind regards

Since confirmed that this is being handled between Geneva and New York andthis thread has been drawn to their attention.

[Russell996]

Originally Posted by KarlS

And here is the answer from Switzerland:

Dear karl

I am very pleased to confirm that I have been in contact with Geneva and they confirm that the warranty is with the watch and not the owner.

🇺🇸Patek 👎

🇬🇧 Patek 👍

🇨🇭 Patek 👍

Good Work. Should all be resolved soon.