- Posts
- 313
- Likes
- 326
ninman
·So, in the UK we have something called the consumer rights act 2015, which allows a consumer to reject an item bought at retail within 30 days if it is "not as described" or "not of satisfactory quality".
I recently traded in my Omega Speedmaster First Omega in Space to a watch dealer for a Rolex 6694 plus cash on top. The watch came with a 7835 bracelet, but I noticed that the end links had different model numbers. One was a 357, the other 361.
I told the dealer that, and showed him pictures of it, and he told me that one was a service part and he could source me a correct end link. I told him that I wanted to reject the watch under the CRA and asked him to return my Speedmaster.
Now he's fighting me over it. I even sent their watch back, as I'm legally required to do, and sent them a formal letter stating that I'm rejecting the watch for not being as described, as it came with a guarantee of authenticity.
He's trying to say that because I bought it in his shop, I got a chance to inspect it first, so it was "sold as seen", and that they're going to send me a "formal response". They also said that receiving my watch back doesn't mean that they're accepting my rejection of the goods, and that it's authentic because it's made up of authentic Rolex parts.
I'm just really frustrated over this, because I was hoping he'd be reasonable, acknowledge and apologise for the mistake and return my Speedmaster. I wasn't expecting him to try and argue with me about it. It's pretty clear cut. The end links don't match, i.e. one of them is not original to that watch. He must know, as a watch dealer, that for watch collectors, or people who buy vintage watches, that kind of detail is extremely important.
What do you think?
I recently traded in my Omega Speedmaster First Omega in Space to a watch dealer for a Rolex 6694 plus cash on top. The watch came with a 7835 bracelet, but I noticed that the end links had different model numbers. One was a 357, the other 361.
I told the dealer that, and showed him pictures of it, and he told me that one was a service part and he could source me a correct end link. I told him that I wanted to reject the watch under the CRA and asked him to return my Speedmaster.
Now he's fighting me over it. I even sent their watch back, as I'm legally required to do, and sent them a formal letter stating that I'm rejecting the watch for not being as described, as it came with a guarantee of authenticity.
He's trying to say that because I bought it in his shop, I got a chance to inspect it first, so it was "sold as seen", and that they're going to send me a "formal response". They also said that receiving my watch back doesn't mean that they're accepting my rejection of the goods, and that it's authentic because it's made up of authentic Rolex parts.
I'm just really frustrated over this, because I was hoping he'd be reasonable, acknowledge and apologise for the mistake and return my Speedmaster. I wasn't expecting him to try and argue with me about it. It's pretty clear cut. The end links don't match, i.e. one of them is not original to that watch. He must know, as a watch dealer, that for watch collectors, or people who buy vintage watches, that kind of detail is extremely important.
What do you think?
