Discount Shop

The watch that Mr [redacted] is referring to is a [redacted] SNZG15Kwhich features an automatic movement that winds through the motion of the hand, i.ethe watch would have to be worn in order for it to get chargedWhen we received the watch for service, the technician followed the standard practice of placing the watch on an automatic cyclotest, which is a machine that simulates motionThis machine is not in perpetual motion -- it alternates so that it is in motion for half the time while remaining stationary for the other half, thereby replicating the typical usage of an automatic watchThe watch was observed to keep accurate time, day after dayAfter a full week's continuous observation, when the watch was observed to keep accurate time throughout, the technician saw no problem that ought to be fixedTampering unnecessarily with a movement that is working fine can actually be harmfulMr [redacted] was notified and the watch was duly returnedWhile we appreciate Mr ***'s point that he is still observing problems with the watch during his usage, we disagree with his point that the technician should have worn the watch for a couple of daysThe technicians use a cyclotest machine precisely because it would be unprofessional to wear a customer's watchThe service center thus did all that they are supposed to do in diagnosing a problem Regardless, since Mr [redacted] is certain that he is using the watch correctly (i.eregularly exposing it to motion), and that the watch is still not functioning correctly, we will simply replace the movement as per the terms of the warrantyThe terms of the warranty clearly state that "The warranty does not cover -- repair performed by other service centers." This can be verified here - www.discountshop.com/warranty Mr [redacted] is welcome to send the watch to us to have the movement replaced Regards, - [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because: I have clearly explained my rights in all of the complaints, whereby, I do not believe the item is fit for purpose and so I demand a refundIt is otherwise worded that I am being accused of breaking the watch myselfWhatever your preconditions are that you stipulate, they are null and void with regards to the sales of goods act as the watch has not lasted what I consider to be an acceptable length of timeParticularly when it is designed as a watch specifically for use in [redacted] The act states that the responsibility lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer and so this company needs to deal with the issue at handPlus, I am unsure where they get the date of the 27th June from, as I do not remember receiving the watch until the first week of July Sincerely, [redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me Please request the company to e-mail shipping address
Sincerely,
*** ***

Dear ** *** *** *** on *** clearly indicates the package was delivered on 27th June at 2:pm
The stated terms and conditions -- acceptance of which is a precondition of purchase -- stipulate that items may be returned in original and unused condition within days for a refundContractual terms cannot simply be ignored arbitrarilyWe are well within our legal rights to deny a refund on a purchase that is now months old when it is stipulated in the purchase contract that customers have days to decide whether or not to keep the item
We have explained this to ** *** times directly, and now this is our 2nd time explaining the same point through Revdex.comSince ** *** is continuing to believe that he has some legal right to ignore the original purchase contract, it would be advisable for him to retain the services of a practicing attorney who can represent his argument through legal channelsWe can then refer the matter to our attorney and the case can be settled in courtWe will accept the verdict of the court
Regards,
- ***

Dear [redacted],
Thank you for providing us the opportunity to explain our side with respect to complaint #[redacted]. The return policy on our web-store clearly stipulates that items must be returned in original and unused condition within 30 days for a refund. Here is a web-link for your reference:...

[redacted] was received on 19th June 2014 and was delivered on 27th June 2014. As per the terms and conditions of the web-store, which the customer accepted as a precondition for purchase, this order could have been returned up until 27th July 2014 for a return. The customer contacted us on 15th September, i.e. 2.5 months after the purchase date. By this time, the item has been used and it is fully 1.5 months outside the return period. Through both contraventions, it is ineligible for a refund. We have explained as much to the customer 3 times. However, the customer is arbitrarily arguing that he should have 1 year to claim a refund. We cannot accept this argument as we have been unequivocal and consistent in all our stated terms and conditions that the return period is 30 days. [redacted] is a seller. [redacted] is the manufacturer of this item. As the seller, we have no involvement with manufacturing. Nonetheless, we provide 30 days for a customer to decide whether or not they wish to keep an item. While we do note the customer's disappointment with this item, we cannot issue a refund for a used product 2.5 months after purchase.
Please let us know if there is any further information you require from our side.
Regards,
- [redacted]

The watch that Mr [redacted] is referring to is a [redacted] SNZG15K1 which features an automatic movement that winds through the motion of the hand, i.e. the watch would have to be worn in order for it to get charged. When we received the watch for service, the technician followed the standard practice of...

placing the watch on an automatic cyclotest, which is a machine that simulates motion. This machine is not in perpetual motion -- it alternates so that it is in motion for half the time while remaining stationary for the other half, thereby replicating the typical usage of an automatic watch. The watch was observed to keep accurate time, day after day. After a full week's continuous observation, when the watch was observed to keep accurate time throughout, the technician saw no problem that ought to be fixed. Tampering unnecessarily with a movement that is working fine can actually be harmful. Mr [redacted] was notified and the watch was duly returned. While we appreciate Mr [redacted]'s point that he is still observing problems with the watch during his usage, we disagree with his point that the technician should have worn the watch for a couple of days. The technicians use a cyclotest machine precisely because it would be unprofessional to wear a customer's watch. The service center thus did all that they are supposed to do in diagnosing a problem.
Regardless, since Mr [redacted] is certain that he is using the watch correctly (i.e. regularly exposing it to motion), and that the watch is still not functioning correctly, we will simply replace the movement as per the terms of the warranty. The terms of the warranty clearly state that "The warranty does not cover -- repair performed by other service centers." This can be verified here - www.discountshop.com/warranty
Mr [redacted] is welcome to send the watch to us to have the movement replaced.
Regards,
- [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:
I have clearly explained my rights in all of the complaints, whereby, I do not believe the item is fit for purpose and so I demand a refund. It is otherwise worded that I am being accused of breaking the watch myself. Whatever your preconditions are that you stipulate, they are null and void with regards to the sales of goods act 1979 as the watch has not lasted what I consider to be an acceptable length of time. Particularly when it is designed as a watch specifically for use in [redacted]. The act states that the responsibility lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer and so this company needs to deal with the issue at hand. Plus, I am unsure where they get the date of the 27th June from, as I do not remember receiving the watch until the first week of July.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Review: I purchased a [redacted] utility watch from this company which arrived towards the end of the first week of July. This weekend it registered a fault, namely it began beeping and flashing for no known reason, constantly and needing placement in the car so as not to disturb friends' wedding ceremony. Upon checking the watch later it has now not displaying anything. I do not believe have had reasonable use of the watch before it has become defective and the company are refusing me a refund. Since I have bought it in the UK I believe I am covered by my consumer rights here. Due to the fact that the watch is clearly not fit for purpose as a waterproof watch specific for surfing (in fact I have worn it for only ONE session of not even 2 hours), I am well within my rights to request a refund. I do not wish to have it repaired as it should not become faulty within 2 months of ownership. The vender are refusing a refund and merely reiterate their 30 day money back guarantee, which I do not believe counts when the item is clearly defective and not fit for use, in line with my consumer rights. Any help with this situation would be much appreciated.Desired Settlement: I would like for the company to agree to a return of the watch and to refund my payment, and any charges incurred through returning the item.

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted],

Thank you for providing us the opportunity to explain our side with respect to complaint #[redacted]. The return policy on our web-store clearly stipulates that items must be returned in original and unused condition within 30 days for a refund. Here is a web-link for your reference: [redacted] was received on 19th June 2014 and was delivered on 27th June 2014. As per the terms and conditions of the web-store, which the customer accepted as a precondition for purchase, this order could have been returned up until 27th July 2014 for a return. The customer contacted us on 15th September, i.e. 2.5 months after the purchase date. By this time, the item has been used and it is fully 1.5 months outside the return period. Through both contraventions, it is ineligible for a refund. We have explained as much to the customer 3 times. However, the customer is arbitrarily arguing that he should have 1 year to claim a refund. We cannot accept this argument as we have been unequivocal and consistent in all our stated terms and conditions that the return period is 30 days. [redacted] is a seller. [redacted] is the manufacturer of this item. As the seller, we have no involvement with manufacturing. Nonetheless, we provide 30 days for a customer to decide whether or not they wish to keep an item. While we do note the customer's disappointment with this item, we cannot issue a refund for a used product 2.5 months after purchase.

Please let us know if there is any further information you require from our side.

Regards,

- [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

I have clearly explained my rights in all of the complaints, whereby, I do not believe the item is fit for purpose and so I demand a refund. It is otherwise worded that I am being accused of breaking the watch myself. Whatever your preconditions are that you stipulate, they are null and void with regards to the sales of goods act 1979 as the watch has not lasted what I consider to be an acceptable length of time. Particularly when it is designed as a watch specifically for use in [redacted]. The act states that the responsibility lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer and so this company needs to deal with the issue at hand. Plus, I am unsure where they get the date of the 27th June from, as I do not remember receiving the watch until the first week of July.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted] on [redacted] clearly indicates the package was delivered on 27th June at 2:56 pm.

The stated terms and conditions -- acceptance of which is a precondition of purchase -- stipulate that items may be returned in original and unused condition within 30 days for a refund. Contractual terms cannot simply be ignored arbitrarily. We are well within our legal rights to deny a refund on a purchase that is now 2.5 months old when it is stipulated in the purchase contract that customers have 30 days to decide whether or not to keep the item.

We have explained this to [redacted] 3 times directly, and now this is our 2nd time explaining the same point through Revdex.com. Since [redacted] is continuing to believe that he has some legal right to ignore the original purchase contract, it would be advisable for him to retain the services of a practicing attorney who can represent his argument through legal channels. We can then refer the matter to our attorney and the case can be settled in court. We will accept the verdict of the court.

Regards,

- [redacted]

Great price, quickly shipped!

Review: I bought a [redacted] 5 Sports SNZG15K1 for $146.00 from The Discount Shop, www.discountshop.com, on 06-09-2013. Within days after receiving the watch it started to slow down and then ultimately stopped. I wear the watch all the time and only take it off when I shower. The watch is under warranty and I sent it back to the retailer for repair. They shipped it back the very next day without even adjusting the date and told me the watch was fine. I wore it and within two days it started slowing down again. I sent it back to the retailer for the second time. They informed me that the watch was observed for a week on an automatic winder and it worked fine so they shipped it back to me on Wednesday, October 3rd. I received it today, October the 7th and the watch was not running. The date on the watch was October the 3rd which means it stopped working the day they took it off the auto winder. I'm surprised they did not let the watch sit or a technician wear it for a couple of days to diagnose the problem. I wear the watch all the time so it is kept in motion. Finally, I sent the watch to [redacted]'s ONLY authorized service center in [redacted] and they diagnosed the problem to be a defect in the watch movement which would cost $95.75 to repair. I sent an e-mail to The Doscount Shop asking them to kindly fix the problem along with a copy of the repair estimate from [redacted] and I received the following reply via e-mail,Dear Mr [redacted],The terms of the warranty offer service. No reimbursement can be provided for service obtained elsewhere. And our technicians cannot repair anything that needs no repair. The watch was under observation for a full week and there was no loss/gain in time-keeping.If you wish to have the watch serviced elsewhere, that is up to you.Regards,- [redacted]I have records of all e-mails and repair estimates which I can fax over if needed.Desired Settlement: Would like the watch to be repaired or replaced.

Business

Response:

The watch that Mr [redacted] is referring to is a [redacted] SNZG15K1 which features an automatic movement that winds through the motion of the hand, i.e. the watch would have to be worn in order for it to get charged. When we received the watch for service, the technician followed the standard practice of placing the watch on an automatic cyclotest, which is a machine that simulates motion. This machine is not in perpetual motion -- it alternates so that it is in motion for half the time while remaining stationary for the other half, thereby replicating the typical usage of an automatic watch. The watch was observed to keep accurate time, day after day. After a full week's continuous observation, when the watch was observed to keep accurate time throughout, the technician saw no problem that ought to be fixed. Tampering unnecessarily with a movement that is working fine can actually be harmful. Mr [redacted] was notified and the watch was duly returned. While we appreciate Mr [redacted]'s point that he is still observing problems with the watch during his usage, we disagree with his point that the technician should have worn the watch for a couple of days. The technicians use a cyclotest machine precisely because it would be unprofessional to wear a customer's watch. The service center thus did all that they are supposed to do in diagnosing a problem.

Regardless, since Mr [redacted] is certain that he is using the watch correctly (i.e. regularly exposing it to motion), and that the watch is still not functioning correctly, we will simply replace the movement as per the terms of the warranty. The terms of the warranty clearly state that "The warranty does not cover -- repair performed by other service centers." This can be verified here - www.discountshop.com/warranty

Mr [redacted] is welcome to send the watch to us to have the movement replaced.

Regards,

- [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. Please request the company to e-mail shipping address.

Sincerely,