AuthenticWatches.com

I ordered a product through authenticwatches.com with a hint of skepticism; however the ordering and sales process was phenomenal. I placed a pre-sales call and my initial questions were answered in full. After placing my order online, I received constant email confirmations throughout the process. I even received a confirmation telephone call confirming the order from a very pleasant representative. I chose to send the item back for no other reason than I found a local make and model that offered me personally more support options for warranty repairs. There is not a local shop within 250 miles that services the brand I originally ordered. I wanted to state that even though this purchase did not work out, my experience with authenticwatches.com was excellent. RMA process and refund was completed per the terms and conditions. I will note a couple important items. 1. I did not open my package when arrived and shipped back in another box preserving original state 2. The item that I ordered was IN STOCK allowing for an easier RMA process. 3. Per AW terms and conditions, my refund was complete minus shipping costs (this was expected). This vendor fulfilled every obligation written in their documentation but as a buyer, please read all the terms and conditions.

Complaint: 10809934
I am rejecting this response because:
Perhaps some insight to my background will illustrate my
frustration dealing with a company that fails to do what they say they will.
I am a retired Marine Corps Officer and a Disabled Veteran.  I spent a career serving with men and women
of honor, men and women who could be trusted at their word to do what they said
they would. 
Now, I have encountered an organization who works every
angle to gain the upper hand, whose heavy handed, intimidating tactics border
on extortionary while simultaneously accusing me of making threats.  My “threats’ consisted of: (1) Stating I
would contact the Revdex.com; (2) Stating I would speak with my
credit card company regarding this m[redacted]er and, (3)  I would write a negative review if I did not
obtain an equitable solution.  These are
not threats, these are Consumer Protections available to all American
Citizens.  Yet, at the mere mention of
involving these additional agencies, the representatives of Authentic Watches
immediately became argumentative and hostile while pointedly discouraging me
from speaking with these agencies.  Why
would this be?  Why would an honorable
company who is operating above the board wish to discourage a consumer from
invoking standard avenues of protection? 
And yet, within two days of contacting my credit card
company Authentic Watches issued an immediate refund of 80% of the original
purchase price.  Why did they suddenly
refund this money so willingly? 
Three days after I contacted the Revdex.com I began to receive several
emails from Authentic Watches.  In an
email dated 14 September 2015, Peter Grant, the General Manager for Authentic
Watches, informed me my watch was now ready to be shipped.  An incredibly coincidental turn of events,
no?  Just three days prior I had been
informed by M[redacted] that my watch would need a MINIMUM of three weeks before it
would the watch would be repaired.
So, based on the above observations, it would seem the
normal avenues available for Consumer Protection really do work.  Despite Authentic Watches threats to the
contrary immediately following my contacting the Revdex.com and the
Bank of America, my watch was suddenly ready to be shipped. 
I have countless emails that document my correspondence with
Authentic Watches where my tone is polite and accommodating.  Similarly, I have several emails from
Authentic Watches where their tone is aggressive, intimidating and hostile.  In short, the company misrepresents their
products:  they advertise and sell as new
watches that damaged and in need of repair. 
By way of apologizing for receiving a watch that was so
obviously malfunctioning, Amber promised on 19 August 2015 that my watch would
receive RUSH service and it would be back in my hands within 3-weeks of its
return to Authentic Watches.  THIS IS THE
POLICY AUTHENTIC WATCHES VIOLATED.  For
reference, I never tacitly entered into any other agreement with Authentic
Watches.
Any competent lawyer could request discovery which I would be willing to bet
would reveal a systemic p[redacted]ern of instances where Authentic Watches knowingly
shipped malfunctioning watches as new.
Despite all of the above including Authentic Watches
unwillingness to honor their agreements, since Authentic Watches claimed my
watch had been repaired and was ready for shipment, in an email dated 14
September 2105 I suggested an elegantly simple and equitable solution to this
dispute:  Authentic Watches re-charge my
credit card for the 80% refund they issued then simply ship my watch back to
me.  And their response, they insisted I
wire – yes, use a direct wire transfer – the FULL AMOUNT to their bank account,
then they would refund 20%. 
When I asked via email why I should now trust they would do
the right thing and use a wire transfer, a method of payment that offers ZERO
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS, all communication with Authentic Watches ceased.
Authentic Watches business model and those in its employ are unscrupulous,
exploitive, dishonest and nefarious.
Some final points to consider that will highlight the unscrupulous
nature of this company. In their response to you they state I removed all tags
from the watch.  This is a lie.  Both plastic protective covers were in place
and had never been removed from the crown and case when I shipped the watch
back to Authentic Watches.  The watch was
on my wrist for exactly one minute.  How
then did a flexible band with an extremely high shape memory permanently
crease?  How was the buckle
scratched?  How was the case
scratched?  I took detailed photos before
I returned the watch.  None of the
claimed damage is visible in any of the photos. 
Thus, there are only three explanations for the damage now claimed by
Authentic Watches:  (1) they shipped a
watch to me that had been previously used and returned; (2) the watch was not
in fact damaged and their response is part of a systemic p[redacted]ern of
intimidation or, (3) they are lying.   
Regards,
[redacted]

This client is not a client of ours.  His timepiece was never purchased from us.  The client has a watch that is 40-50 years old.
The client had called, and asked if we can get him an estimate for the service and refinishing of his timepiece.  The estimate for service...

was $442, and he opted for the optional refinishing service of $150.  He paid a total of $592. 
The timepiece was serviced, refinished, tested, and returned.
Because the timepiece  has decades of wear, it is impossible to refinish it to perfection. As indicated to the client , the refinishing service will be to restore it "as best as possible:".
The function of the timepiece was tested prior to return to the client, and the timepiece was indeed fully functional. 
If the client is experiencing issues with the timepiece post-service, he is free to return the timepiece to us, and we will send it to the dealer for evaluation. 
We will not reimburse this client for any sum of money.

So pleased I was with my recent purchase of a TAG Carrera. I had a great experience with Authentic Watches and I am impressed by the great condition of the watch. Since I bought a store display model, I wasn’t sure how it would look. I received it yesterday and I am extremely satisfied. I’ll be back in no time (ha, no pun intended)!

We are unable to accommodate the requests of refund, nor service under warranty, for the reasons outlined in our previous response.
The facts are as follows:
10/13/2014:  This timepiece was sent in fully functional condition.
12/30/2014:  The client damaged the timepiece (impacted, causing dislodged screw), and we serviced it free of charge as a one time courtesy. Returned to client 1/26/15.
4/13/2016:  Client returned timepiece indicating it was gaining 5 minutes per day
5/8/2016: Client was emailed an estimate for a movement maintenance procedure required. 
5/8/16 - 5/9/16 - Client argued about ever having been sent a functional timepiece at any point, despite the fact that no complaints about function had been reported within the approximate 1.25 years since the last time the client received the timepiece which was repaired as a courtesy. Client demanded $500 Million. Client made it clear he had no intention of remitting payment.
5/27/2016 - Client's watch was returned with no intervention.
 
This client is attempting to pose an argument that he was never shipped a functioning timepiece. The client was shipped a timepiece which was fully functional until he damaged it in December of 2014. Although we were under no obligation whatsoever to repair it free of charge (damages are not covered under warranty), we did so as a one time courtesy. The client received his timepiece back in January of 2015, and has not communicated about any problems whatsoever until 1 year, 2 months, and 2 weeks later. Upon receiving an estimate, he started claiming it had never worked. 
The client has further asserted that we never informed him that it could be impacted, and that this is a self serving fabrication. However, in response to his email stating that a service should not be required until after 5 years (which is incorrect), we replied via email on Monday, May 9th, at 7:42 am (PT) stating:
"Thank you for your email. A movement maintenance service is advertisedto be required every few years; however, there are a litany of factorsthat can necessitate service at more frequent intervals (impact,vibration, leaving the crown open, moisture infiltration, long periodsof non-use, etc)."
The assertion that it was never mentioned that his maintenance service may be due to an impact is simple prevarication.
The timepiece does indeed require a movement maintenance service in order to restore function. As clearly outlined in our warranty of merchantability posted on every page of our website, a movement maintenance service is not covered under warranty. Here is a link to our policies:
http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html
Here is a copy of the applicable exclusions clause, verbatim:
"The warranty does not cover damages caused by impact, vibrations, magnetic fields, or batteries; nor does it cover straps, bracelets, bezels, buckles, finishes, cases, dials, hands, crowns, buttons or crystals. It also does not cover damage or defects arising from normal wear; nor does it cover overhauls, maintenance, scratches, accidents, misuse or return shipping."
There are no other implied warranties, as clearly outlined in the following clauses in our warranty policies:
"All timepieces sold through AuthenticWatches.com will be warranted by the AuthenticWatches.com limited warranty of merchantability unless otherwise noted."
"There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
"The foregoing is the entire term of warranty, and no other warranties are included, nor shall be construed to have been implied."
All policies are in strict compliance with the laws governing warranties of merchantability (UCC § 2-316). The client agreed to these policies upon checkout, as well as upon returning his timepiece for service. 
We are sorry, however, we are not able to accommodate the client's request for a refund, nor for warranty service of his damaged timepiece. Thank you.

First; this client's issue has already been resolved. The item which was received back was authentic, however it was indeed defective. There was a gap between the case and the bezel, and this is indeed a manufacturer defect. For that reason alone, coupled with the fact that we did not have another in stock, we have issued a full refund. 
We were a bit puzzled as to how this client could possibly think that a timepiece we sell is not authentic, given that this is her third purchase from us over the course of the last few years.  This client has been blatantly misled by the dealer she took her timepiece to. The dealer is fully aware of the authenticity of the item, which is why, when asked to furnish a letter, they did not state that the item was not authentic. The letter stated that they either couldn't verify authenticity or there may be a defect. This is sophistry at best.  They also didn't specify the serial number on the letter.  This is a VERY common practice with jewelers who do not want to lose a sale to an online competitor. They instill doubt in the client's purchase, without actually making any definitive statements about the authenticity to avoid any potential liability for having provided a libelous document. 
Had the timepiece not been defective, we would indeed have assessed a 10% fee, as the letter provided did not reference this particular timepiece, nor did it verify that whichever timepiece it was in reference to was indeed non-authentic. All items we sell are 100% authentic, and we always do our absolute best to take care of our clients. Because there was indeed a manufacturer defect with the case of this timepiece, we have indeed refunded the client in full, several days prior to having received this lengthy retort. (When we called to inform her she would receive a full refund after having examined the case of the timepiece, she had informed us she had already replied to this thread, however, we have not received this reply until today, 4/14/2015).
We apologize for any inconvenience having been caused to this client, and are pleased that she was satisfied with the outcome (according to our phone conversation.)

Excellent service and products came authentic as advertised. Very happy with this experience.

Complaint: 10313044I am rejecting this response because: the existing sign is deceiving. The company does have a restocking fee of merchandise $5,000, can you deny it? Defetnaly no, I don't think so.. The sign should be changed to "Restocking fee applies to merchandise $5,000 or more" instead of the current deceiving one. The sign would be more clear to all new customers. I'm not asking for policies to be posted in the front of the website as you mentioned, simply change the sign to, "Restocking fee applies to merchandise $5,000 or more." Of course the actuall sign you have up is nefarious and deceiving. Be transparent of what you advertise I think it is only fair to me and future costumer masking your actual plolicies is misguiding. The Revdex.com should re-examine your "No restocking fee" sing becasue it is simply not true. Issue a refund back to my account and change the sign. Regards,[redacted]

I have spoken extensively with this client today.  The timepiece was returned damaged, as evidenced by the photographs previously attached. The client claims there is "a scratch" on the bezel. In reality, the entire bezel is full of scratches and impact points. Further, the entire case is full of scratches and impact points.
The client continuously, and repeatedly, referred to the call he had placed a year ago. Insisting it wasn't the crown.  He stated he had called because there was a scratch on the bezel. This makes no sense. An analogy would be for me to call Ford a year after purchasing my car to report a scratch in the paint, and citing it as a defect. 
Upon informing the client that the massive impact point located on the lug of the watch is what may have caused the movement to stop, he informed me that he remembers the impact happened 6 months ago, so that couldn't be it.  Moments later, he said that it had happened a year ago, and that he wasn't calling about the crown or the bezel, but he was calling to report that impact point on the lug!
The client has repeatedly modified his account, and has repeatedly attempted to evade responsibility for having levied severe damage to his timepiece. Again, photographs of the timepiece were attached in our initial response.
However, all of this is a moot point.  The timepiece is being shipped to the authorized service center for analysis, and an estimate for repair of the damages will be provided to the client. He can, at that point, remit payment and accept, or request that we recall the timepiece to be returned to him.
We do not have any documentation regarding the manufacture date of the timepiece, nor would we provide the client with internal company documentation had we had such.

This client purchased and received a Breitling timepiece. The client called in to report that the item was not as advertised, and that they did not receive an anthracite strap as ordered (model 100W) on their watch, but instead had received a green military strap (which is model...

#105W).
We will indeed be happy to offer a full refund, if the account of the customer having received the incorrect strap was actually true.
Upon receipt of the timepiece, we see that the strap shipped was indeed the correct strap ordered (anthracite color, model #100W - inscribed on the back of the strap).
Since the item we shipped was not incorrect, we cannot offer a full refund and waive our policies based on the client's inaccurate depiction of what was received.  
Whereas the client was indeed shipped, and did indeed receive (and subsequently return) the exact item which they ordered; we are not able to offer a full refund, and must assess the 10% restocking fee as outlined in our policies.
We apologize, however, we are not able to issue the client any further refunds.

All information contained in our previous response is accurate. We have policies which are agreed to upon checkout clearly outlining the terms of sale. Additionally, these are very common policies. No manufacturer, nor authorized dealer, allows for a return of a watch for refund after even a few days of wear, much less over a year.
The timepiece cannot be returned for refund as, #1 - The timepiece has been worn, and #2 - Over one year and three months have transpired since purchase (our return policy is that items must be returned brand new, with all tags and stickers, never having been worn, and be returned within 30 days). 
Here is a link to our policies:
http://www.authenticwatches.com/info.html
Here is the specific link to our return policy:
http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-return-policy.html
 
All returned items for repair must be accompanied by payment for return shipping.  Here is a link to our warranty policies which outlines this:
http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html
Here is a link to the RMA for which outlines this (which the customer signed and included with the package):
http://www.authenticwatches.com/returns.html
In addition, we have attached a photograph of a blank warranty card, which also outlines this
 
Once the client remits payment for return shipping, the timepiece will be sent to the service center for assessment. Should the client not wish to have the timepiece serviced, then the timepiece will be returned to him with no intervention. In either case, the return shipping payment is for return shipping. The timepiece will remain in storage pending the arrival of the client's payment.
 
Please note that we are not responsible for any items left in our possession in excess of one year (from the time of receipt).
 
Thank you.

Complaint: 11480509
I am rejecting this response because: 
The business has no records of having sent a functioning timepiece. It has no records that it at any time indicated there was an impact to the watch – the language sent to me stating "[a] movement maintenance service is advertised to be required every few years; however, there are a litany of factors that can necessitate service at more frequent intervals (impact, vibration, leaving the crown open, moisture infiltration, long periods of non-use, etc)." None of these potential causes are alleged to have occurred with my watch by this language. Why include the other listed reasons if there was a clear identified cause? That defies logic. This boiler plate language, and there is no record of the watch having been impacted in 2014, or at any time prior to this complaint being filed. The business raises this now as a undocumented excuse for the timepieces failure to operate as advertised.
 
The timepiece never worked. It may well have been damaged – but if it was, that occurred prior to my getting possession of the timepiece because it never functioned. The business can make up a timeline with fabrications about alleged damage that was conveniently never documented – damage that in fact did not occur – but it doesn’t change the fact that the business sold a unmerchantable timepiece, and will be refunding the cost of the timepiece.
 
I do not attempt to pose an argument, I state a fact – the watch I was sold never worked properly.  The business was under an obligation to sell goods that are merchantable – it can disclaim this and point to its warranty, but this changes nothing with respect to its duties under law as a merchant. Its policies may well be drafted to comply with the UCC – nonetheless, its conduct violates the obligations to sell merchantable goods. I make no claims at this point under the timepiece’s warranty – I revoke my acceptance of this unmerchantable good – as is my right under both California and New York State law – both of which I could elect to pursue a claim under.
 
It is fitting that the business has discovered the meaning of the word ‘prevarication’ – as it aligns well with its conduct in responding to this complaint and in its business practices. 

Regards,
[redacted]

Bought a $3K TAG watch from Authentic watches (AW) .com. When I got it the box had a sticker (MADE in China). One of the side buttons grated when pushed. The clasp broke within a couple weeks of wearing it. The automatic winding wouldn't hold charge overnight requiring the time to be set every morning.
Authentic watches said to send it to them to look at to see if it could be covered under warranty. Sent it off with return postage paid. After couple weeks they finally said it would be $600 to fix the "movement mechanism" and it would not be covered by warranty. I argued that the mechanism should be covered by the warranty. That is when the penny dropped and I realised the warranty was not a described by TAG for all TAG watched.
Had they not been so opportunistic it might have ended there however I started to doubt the authenticity of the watch. VISA company got involved and spoke to Authentic watches. The investigator asked AW many questions, none of which they could answer; where the watch was sent for repair, had the watch been fixed, etc.
The VISA investigator asked AW to return the watch without being repaired. The investigator predicted that we would never see the watch again as it was highly likely a fake. As predicted the watch was never returned and VISA returned our money thankfully.
Complete SCAM. Fake watch and even greedier opportunism when people seek to get their watches fixed. Why VISA companies cannot blacklist such firms is beyond me. Revdex.com's reputation is severely compromised in my eyes if they do not remove this firm.

My experience and ultimately the purchase of my Rolex with Authentic Watches has exceeded my expectations. Being from Australia and the business located in the US, I was reluctant to buy something online especially to the tune of US$9K. Operating from 2 emails, I asked many questions; all of which were professionally replied to. From Matt, to Jack, Roy, Amber and Laz...every one of them were responded to. After checking other testimonials, particularly the ones ordered outside of the US, I decided to take the plunge and ordered my Rolex. The watch was ordered on the Thursday and I received it the following week on Tuesday. I couldn't believe how quickly I received this...I thought something wasn't right. For such a significant purchase online, I wanted to be sure I didn't get something less than authentic. After having this verified from Rolex in Melbourne, Australia, I'm comforted by the purchase. These guys are the real deal. And I love my watch! Only downside is having to do any warranty works by sending the watch back to the US, but I'm sure Authentic Watches will advise and look after me when that time comes.

This company, either intentionally, or with flawed bookkeeping, appears to withholding from me $2444 for a watch I paid for and returned. I would never do business with them again. I will have to take the time and money to sue them, and find out if their action is careless, as I would prefer to believe, or fraudulent. After other employees recognized that the money was owed, an individual gentleman who identified himself as Peter Grant has claimed otherwise, wo any explanation of the admissions by company agents. If others have been the victim of this company, and of Mr Grant, I would appreciate knowing about it.[redacted]

No one at this office will ever say "We haven't processed your order yet, but we will process it, so that we can cancel it and charge a restocking fee."  This assertion is ludicrous.  Assuming there was some sort of organization that was indeed perpetuating such behavior .... why on earth would such organization TELL the customer that they were participating in such nefarious activity?  The client is not being truthful.
The client has just stated "it was not 4 hours" from the time to the order to the time of the cancellation. He is correct, though, not in the sense he'd like to be. He placed the order at 8:02am PST, and cancelled the order at 12:58pm PST.  It was 4 hours and 56 minutes from the time he placed the order, to the time he cancelled the order.
As evidenced in our previous communication, the client has levied a litany of falsehoods in his complaint. The rejection of our rebuttal is no different. 
The client now asserts we have falsely advertised. No, this again, is not true.  In accordance with standard, universal business practice (in every business, of every kind, in the entire country), we have an advertisement, along with an asterisk, which is universally understood to mean that there are policies and restrictions tied to this.  Again, this is a universal practice, employed in every advertisement, of every business in the United States.  We state " No Restocking Fee* "    There is as policy page directly linked to that statement.  The same is true of everything else posted, such as "Free Bracelet Sizing".  So, if one wished, they can then claim we have false advertising if we refuse to add 1,000 free links to a watch, citing that they did not read the policy indicating that it only applies to downsizing. 
As there are over 7 pages of policies, we cannot possibly explain each one on each page of every item. That is why there is a policies page, and you can link to this page from every single page on our website. Further, the client was not allowed to checkout until he agreed to the policies which are listed on that page (this is systemically built into our system, as with most other websites). 
We are sorry, however we are not able to extend any refund to the client, regardless of the threats of a police report to recuperate a restocking fee he agreed to.  Police don't get involved in civil matters, and; the client seems not to be familiar with laws pertaining to limitations of remedy pursuant to UCC § 2-719. No further action can be taken on this order, and the refund less the restocking fee has already been issued, and is final. We apologize for any perceived inconvenience.

Very good watch and great price. Fast shipping. Thank you.

We have repeatedly spoken to this client, and have repeatedly informed him that it takes 3 business days from the time he sees the item as "delivered" for it to be sorted through the receiving department, processed by the returns department, and input into our database by the accounting department. Notwithstanding the fact we have informed this client of such repeatedly, he has called us multiple times, every day, during the course of those three business days, asserting that his watch is not authentic and demanding some form of action.
 
The claim this client has that Omega has "confirmed" that the timepiece is counterfeit is 100% untrue. He has never submitted the timepiece for inspection by Omega. No one can determine authenticity of the item without inspection. We have offered to return this item to the client so he can send it in to Omega himself to determine authenticity; he refused.
 
Therefore, to summarize, the client has never actually send in this item to Omega, nor taken it to an Omega dealer. Despite this, he claims that the timepiece is not genuine (which is absolutely untrue.) He refuses to take steps that can prove the authenticity. There is no way to satiate the client's desire to authenticate the timepiece other than him taking the watch directly to Omega to verify, and he refuses to do so. He is simply emailing a serial number to Omega (which is in no way, shape, or form, a way to verify authenticity).
 
As of now, the timepiece has been received by us and forwarded to the dealer for assessment. Should the fault be covered under warranty, we will have it serviced and returned to the client. Should the fault not be covered under warranty, the client will be emailed an estimate for service. Upon receipt and initial inspection, there is a clear impact point visible on the timepiece. The impact was strong enough to indent solid steel, and this can be the reason that the client's timepiece is showing a fault (the date changes at 6 o'clock and the hour hand is slightly misaligned; these are symptoms that can result from impact.) A photograph with red arrows pointing to the indentations is attached.
 
We will await an official assessment from the dealer, and will inform the customer of such. If the client feels the timepiece is not authentic, the client is more than welcome to ship the timepiece directly to Omega to determine authenticity.

Complaint: 11810835
I am rejecting this response because:
The seller states that they cannot list all their policies on every page of the website. However, from the perspective of the customer, there are some policies that are more important or should be better informed about than other policies, such as the restocking fee which is related to a financial subject. Today many renowned businesses offer free return on their products. In cases where such a presumption does not hold, the seller would very explicitly let the customer know the exception. For example, if you go to a local department store to buy something that is on sale or clearance, the cashier at checkout would inform you that the item is final sale and cannot be returned. In addition, the cashier usually would not read to the customer the full store policy because it is common sense that customer are mostly concerned about whether the item can be returned rather than some other policy such as price match.
As an online seller, it is more difficult to let the customer know in case where the common presumption that free return is not offered since there lacks person to person communication in online transactions. Therefore, the seller should take more responsibilities to ensure customers are informed about the exception. I agree, again, that the seller cannot put all the policies on every page of the website. However, the seller is completely capable of putting the stocking fee in a manner that can be more easily identified by customers. For example, on the checkout page, instead of relying the customer to click on the policy link and read the entire policy, the seller can easily add one more check box asking if customer accepts the restocking fee if a special order item is added to the shopping cart. In summary, I believe it is the seller's responsibility to make their restocking fee policy known to customers before purchases are made rather than letting the customer to figure it out on their own since the seller is aware that it is possible that customers may not read their full policy before the purchase.
The seller also states that the return policy is listed in bold on the website, which I don't see. What I see is "No Restocking Fee" on the top of every page.
Regards,
J[redacted]

Complaint: 10125863
I am rejecting this response because: For the same reasons as previously stated.  1) I was told and confirmed by email that the watch would arrive in two weeks. I relied on the misrepresentation for the wedding gift which was now not going to arrive in time 2) I worked with staff over the phone to try and get a similar watch in stock to arrive in time, which they did replace but for a more expensive watch at an added cost to me 3) the watch we received was not the desired style so my now husband ordered another watch to arrive on our wedding day, under his name. This transaction was also arranged over the phone and paypal bill sent to my email address. 4) We were never told, and the website does NOT clearly indicate that there is a restocking fee for purchases over $5000. 5) The restocking fee of $592 is unreasonable and does not reflect actual cost to the company for restocking the item. 
Regards,
[redacted]