Complaint: 10853931
I am rejecting this response because: Sorry, I disagree and refuse to accept this as "normal business". It is wrong and misleading.
Regards,
R[redacted]
Complaint: 10583605
I am rejecting this response because: I guess when you can't back up poor service you just accuse people of lying. What I said about the transaction is true. What about proof of shipping the order to justify a restocking fee they can't provide this because it was never shipped. U will continue my conversations with chronic 24 and pass on these messages until I am refunded or they are pulled from that site
Regards,
[redacted]
This client was indeed shipped a brand new timepiece. However, by the time it was received back from the client, the timepiece was in very worn condition. Here is, verbatim, the exact description of the condition from the manufacturer: "Bracelet Scratched Bezel Scratched Case Back Scratched Crystal Scratched Dents " Although we are never provided details as to "why" the timepiece may require a movement maintenance (overhaul), the fact that the timepiece had "dents" typically means that impacts have caused problems which need to be rectified.The client has cited that he found that the cost should be far lower. The client is referencing the cost of a "basic service", whereas his timepiece requires a complete movement maintenance service (overhaul).The client's timepiece will be returned with no intervention within one week. Thank you.
Complaint: 11810835
I am rejecting this response because:I'm not arguing that the seller failed to display whether an item is in stock of under special order. What I'm arguing is that the seller failed to properly notify the MAJOR consequences associated with an special order item. In regards to the analogy utilized, no cashier will cite all aspects of the return policy upon checkout at any retail establishment. However, if the item is not an ordinary, such as a final sale (as in my case, a special order), the cashier would inform that the item cannot be returned. Displaying an item is not in stock is not the same as saying the item has different return policy as other items which is advertised to have no restocking fee.
Regards,
J[redacted]
Complaint: 11929718
I am rejecting this response because:First I have returned the watch per the instructions so no I am not keeping it while complaining. The Best Buy scenario that the business gave is far reaching and irrelevant to the complaint that has been made. They should have used the analogy of someone who goes to the local car dealership named Authentic Cars and gets shown a green car and to their excitement decides to make a purchase based on the car they are shown but then at time of delivery turns out the car is really black not green. Then once the customer raises the concern over the discrepancy in color everyone at Authentic Cars says "nope that is green you just have to look in the sunlight". This customer then shows that car to everyone he knows and they agree that the car is black not green. So the customer calls Authentic Cars back and expresses his displeasure and the car dealer has him talk to 4 different people who all keep saying the same thing but not really trying to resolve the problem. All the "customer service" people say is sorry we think its green because the sample we showed you from the manufacturer is green regardless of what the actual car color you received. It's the manufacturers problem that their sample car was much greener than what you you really get so we have no obligation to say its black even though deep down we know it really is. I mean after all what car deal named Authentic Cars doesn't stand behind a product they sell? So the used car sales manager finally gets on the phone and says the car is green regardless of you and all your friends so if you are not happy you can return your car but we will have to charge you something for our inconvenience even though we bait and switched you. I have attached pictures of the watch as shown on their website as well as a picture of the actual watch under the brightest light possible to mimic their argument that "in order to see the green you have to look at it in the sunlight". You can clearly see that the watch is not a slight variation from what was represented on the website at time of purchase. It's not 10% off color..it's not 25% off color its actually not even close to the color of the watch on the website. The watch bezel is so far from the color green in the picture that it can't even be compared to the actual watch received. The picture is clearly misleading of the actual color of the watch regardless of whether the seller intentionally set out to mislead consumers. I do not believe that is or was their intent I just think they handled the situation very poorly. So what I am complaining about is their inability to acknowledge that the color of the watch as represented at time of sale and the actual watch received have significant color differences then to charge me for what is in my opinion their error.In addition, I have attached screen shots of their website which includes the "authenticity" guarantee as well as other details. In no area is there a disclaimer that says the watch or watches sold may be different than what is shown online. Also there is no disclaimer that states anything regarding the pictures being more vibrant in color than the actual watch. You cannot show a picture whether manufacturers picture of one color and send another color. This could be considered deceptive advertising especially when you are offering an offer on that specific product.In summary, my statement about the fact that I would have kept the watch should they have acknowledged the picture is a variation from the actual product or offered as small discount. This was only stated so they could see there were ways to improve their customer experience rather than just continue to argue the color.I simply think it is reasonable that they pay for the shipping considering the facts stated above. This is a learning opportunity and they obviously want to just keep stating the same thing regardless of what the pictures show with or without sunlight.Regards,
Regards,
B[redacted]
This client has repeatedly informed us that our policies do not override laws. The law does not require any seller to provide a manufacturer warranty. No seller of watches at a discount online offers a manufacturer warranty (including Amazon, Overstock, Costco, etc.). The client has repeatedly advised us that our actions are illegal, and repeatedly demanded that we provide her with the applicable legislation. We have repeatedly provided her with the laws which clearly articulate that this is allowed, and absolutely legal (in fact, it's universal). She has repeatedly rebutted stating that our actions are not legal.Our policies are clearly posted on our website. The client cannot complete checkout until the policies are read and agreed upon. We have the client's digital agreement, time stamp, and IP address on file, confirming the policies have been read and agreed upon.We have provided the client with the applicable US Laws concerning the warranty of merchantability, which, again, is used by every company on the planet that re-sells timepieces online.Here is a link to our policies: http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html Here are the applicable excepts: "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." Here is the law which clearly allows this: UCC § 2-316 We are sorry this client feels this to be incorrect. However, every one of the 220,000+ timepieces we have sold to date have not come with a manufacturer warranty. The same can be said of the millions of watches sold on Amazon, as well as every other online non-authorized watch dealer in the world. In accordance with the foregoing, we will not be able to issue this client a manufacturer warranty.
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]
Complaint: 10847896
I am rejecting this response because:Just because the item number matches does not mean that the item was as pictured. The watch band in the picture is a different color than the watch band received. I was told and sent an email confirmation (copied below) by a representative of their company, Neal, that they would not charge me the restocking fee. They went back on this return agreement after receiving the merchandise back. I did not know until I received a partial refund and had to call. Essentially keeping my money because it left me with no recourse or ability to exchange for another item.At this time, I want the refund I was told I would get from Neal or credit for the restocking fee to purchase something else.
Regards,
D[redacted] From: [redacted]@authenticwatches.comDate: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:47:27 -0700Subject: Re: RMA # 2[redacted]2 InstructionsTo: [redacted]@hotmail.comDear D[redacted]Thank you for your email. We confirm that you will not be assessed a restocking fee on this return so long as the item is returned within 30 days from the original sale date in the same condition that it was shipped to you. If this is the case, you will only be assessed the initial shipping cost. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.Best Regards,N[redacted]On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:35 PM, D[redacted] <[redacted]@hotmail.com> wrote:Hi N[redacted] -Thank you for this. Where is the note about the no restocking fee as discussed? I'd like to make sure I get that included in the communication.Thank you,D[redacted] From: [redacted]@authenticwatches.comDate: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:57:49 -0700Subject: RMA # 203822 InstructionsTo: d[redacted][email protected] D[redacted],Thank you for your inquiry regarding your return. In order to ensure timely processing, please follow all instructions on the Return Merchandise Authorization form, primarily that:- The item is shipped via the US POSTAL service or your local postal courier - Item must be returned within 30 days of purchase datePlease note that any deviation from the instructions can result in a significant delay in processing. As discussed, a link to the RMA form can be found below:http://www.authenticwatches.com/returns.htmlYour RMA number is: 203822 Once your returned item is received in good order, your RMA will be processed as expeditiously as possible. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for choosing AuthenticWatches.com.Best Regards,NealAuthenticWatches.com###-###-#### +1 805 823 8888-- --- http://www.AuthenticWatches.com--- ###-###-#### or ###-###-####�...⇄ AK, HI, International--- Free overnight shipping. No membership required.--- Save 3% on domestic orders under $5000 when paying with a wire transfer.--- AuthenticWatches.com - Keeping the world on time.--- The leading online source for name brand watches.--- All price quotes are valid for 24 hours.--- Customer Satisfaction - not just a priority, a promise.--- Be the first to hear about special discounts and news by signing up to our mailing list at:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-exclusive-offers.html
Complaint: 11440103
I am rejecting this response because: Quite simply, they are lying. This is their M.O.--read their responses to other complaints. Interesting that after holding my watch hostage for over THREE MONTHS, they respond with a lengthy diatribe in less than THREE HOURS... The only reason I didn't include the rest of their shoddy warranty is I was limited in characters allowed. A few facts: My watch stopped moving (a "movement" issue stated as covered) after less than a YEAR. After TWO months, it was explained to me that it had been sent to an "authorized" repair shop, and they would not have any update for at least another month. When I asked to speak to the shop--to understand what was really going on--they refused to provide any names or contacts for me to speak with--saying their companies they deal with would NEVER let them do so...sound shady?? I think so. After waiting the additional month--I was informed that said technician/shop has evaluated my watch and determined that--big surprise--it needs a complete overhaul...after less than a year...for a brand I have owned (and still do) for years and have NEVER needed this type of service. IF they use so-called "authorized repair shops", there should be no issue with me speaking with the shop to better understand what is happening. They do not allow. Furthermore--while I have no idea whom I was REALLY speaking to a month or so ago--he told me point blank he was the OWNER. For whomever crafted the response to state I "fabricated" that story is further evidence of the shady business practices Authenticwatches.com employs. To paint ME as a LIAR is unconscionable. I will not let this go. I suggest you call some of the others complaining and SPEAK LIVE with them...ask them to tell their story...it will likely reflect the situation I have related, and you will see a pattern that this is NOT an outlying situation--but the RULE when they sell shoddy merchandise. The other aspect that has bothered me is that--throughout this entire process--there has never been one iota of responsibility taken by the retailer, or even contrition on the hassle their system causes their customers...everything is someone elses fault and no doubt their next ploy will be to say that I somehow misused or mishandled my watch...which--I can tell you right now--is not at all the case. The watch has never been dropped, under water, or even bumped...when I sent it, it had no discernible dents or scratches or missing pieces...BOTTOM LINE: THESE GUYS ARE CROOKS WHO REFUSE TO HONOR THEIR SO-CALLED WARRANTY OR STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICE. Again, their A+ rating is a SHAM, and devalues the rating provided to companies who truly EARNED and DESERVE such a rating. This is a joke. I am happy to speak live to either Revdex.com or even Authenticwatches to resolve. Until such resolution--I will maintain they are criminal in their actions and intent.
Regards,
[redacted]
This client purchased a special order timepiece. The lead time is clearly posted as "Usually Ships Within 3 Months" in red lettering immediately above the price. In addition, the same text "Usually Ships Within 3 Months" is written at the top of the item description in black and white.The lead time...
for the item is clearly and conspicuously posted multiple times, in multiple locations. The client has also stated that we do not post that there would be a 10% cancellation fee, then clarifying that we have "hidden" it.Our system does not allow for checkout on our website until our policies have been read and agreed to. This client agreed to our policies on 10/27/16 and we have his electronic agreement and IP address on record.All companies have policies, and no company can possibly list all of their policies on every page of the website. As with every other online company, we have a link to our policies for all to review. The return policy that the client is referencing is in bold on the top of every single page of our website. In that return policy, it does indeed state that we assess a 10% cancellation fee for cancelled special orders. This is not done arbitrarily. In a business where are markup is only about 5-10%, and special order items are typically 25% more than in stock item, we lose a substantial amount of money on cancelled special orders. Once we place the orders with our vendors, we cannot cancel them. Therefore, we now have to list the item at a price that is not competitive (as it was listed at a special order price, far higher than in stock prices).We apologize, however, we will not be able to issue any further refunds as outlined in our policies.
Complaint: 11557996
I am rejecting this response because: I am concerned as they are saying they have no way of tracking my check and considering I did not received the last one they claim was mailed I therefore would like to keep this open until I have the check.
Regards,
A[redacted]
The client called to report an issue with his timepiece and was issued a return authorization for warranty service. The client was upset about return shipping fees. Although the purchase was outside the time-frame outlined in our policy for a waiver of fees, we waived the fees as a one-time customer...
courtesy in order to satisfy the client. Upon receiving the waiver, the client demanded we send a shipping label. We are sorry, however, we are unable to send a shipping label. Upon being informed he could not receive a label, he informed us that he will never purchase from us again, adding that he buys a luxury watch every three weeks. He threatened to report us as a "scam" to the Revdex.com. We are sorry, however, we are unable to simply grant any request a client may ask based on threats of fictitious reports. We have no doubt that any prudent person will be able to determine that companies which commit a "scam" typically don't accept funds and ship the correct item in the hopes that they may one day be able to not provide a return label should an item require warranty service.We are sorry the client is upset, however, we have already waived the return shipping fee for him, and we are unable to provide a label. We apologize again for any inconvenience.
Complaint: 11929718
I am rejecting this response because:Because this business simply keeps ignoring the fact that this watch is not what is represented I took the time to reach out to Breitling Corporate office and shared my experience and pictures of both watches with them. As a result the National Sales Manager contacted me back and clarified that in fact this is not the same watch as he pointed out the discrepancies between the watches and also stated that the watch bezel looks to be black. I have attached his email for your review however this is just a quote to provide context."In the photo of the actual watch you sent, the hands on the sub dials (small dials at 3 and 9) are not silver as they are pictured on the watch on the site. The hands on the actual are red and the bezel appears to be black, not green".Yes it is pretty clear what is going on here. A company that claims to sell authentic watches actually sells watches that are not as authentic as they represent. If Breitling feels the watch is not the same then I am going to assume they know what they are talking about. So while I thank you for your offer to credit my card less fees we will be disputing all charges because of your failure to send me what we ordered. This is allowed per the rules of my credit card to protect consumers from fraud. In fact I am considering filing a claim in court for false advertising and the obtain a refund for the fees I spent to ship the watch back as a matter of principle and to avoid others from having the same issue in the future.I simply can't wait until you get the package and verify that the watch is not the same as stated by Breitling! CheckMic drop!
Regards,
B[redacted]
Complaint: 11012634
I am rejecting this response because:
AW have been selective in their response.A money order CANNOT bounce. They have omitted to explain/comment on why I was told "it doesn't matter" when I questioned why I was given conflicting accounts.They have not and cannot justify delays taking 7 months and they are correct that they reduced the repair fee by $200 to compensate me for the appalling service. There were indeed times in the 7 months that I fearedI would never see my watch or my money again and I expressed that sentiment to AW's General Manager. When the watch was returned to me the box contained no paperwork explaining what work had been carried out on the watch so it is interesting to read AW's summary of the work carried out in their response. I have e mailed them requesting this information in documentary form for my records.As a post script, and since lodging my original complaint, I have now received a bill from FEDEX for £21.00 for admin fee because AW did not provide sufficient detail for my timepiece to clear customs when it was returned after repair. I had paid an additional $50 for the shipping. I have spoken to AW about this additional expense. They are refusing to cover this cost.My watch is currently with a local Breitling dealer being checked to see if the work that I have been billed for has indeed been carried out.
Regards,
K[redacted]
This client did indeed purchase a Rolex timepiece. He has three grievances which we will be happy to address:#1 - The instruction booklet was in Italian. - We purchase timepieces from Authorized Dealers and ship them exactly as they arrive from the dealer. The instructions were indeed in Italian....
Upon notifying us, we asked that he return the booklet and we will ship him a booklet in English. We understand that this may be an inconvenience, however, we are not able to simply ship out items without receiving the incorrect item back. The client's purported outrage for having to be returned is unfortunate. In all business, if there is an item that has to be returned for replacement, it must first be returned before it can be replaced. This is universal in every retail business. Further, the hyperbolic claim citing he is unable to open the buckle of the watch because his manual is not in English will not be alleviated. Watch manuals don't have instructions on how to open a buckle, as this is a simple action of pulling the buckle. #2 - The warranty card was not for the correct term. - The client is indeed correct. Rolex timepieces come with a 6 year warranty by default. He opted to remit payment with Amazon Payments, for which we offer an additional year of coverage. This was simply an oversight, and the client was immediately mailed a new warranty card denoting the 7 year coverage term. We apologize for any inconvenience. #3 - He claims there is a blemish on the timepiece. - We asked that the client please email photos of the blemish. Although this may seem unnecessary to the client, history has shown that many times a "blemish" is reported, it turns out there isn't one. We have several complaints of a watch arriving with "water bubbles in the glass", and it's just a matter of the client not peeling off the protective sticker. We have complaints of "a dent in the case", and it turns out that it's just a speck of dirt. This is why we ask for photographs so that we can clarify, and possibly rectify immediately. In response to our request for photographs, the client emailed us indicating he didn't have a camera. He then stated he was able to take pictures with his "Amazon fire". The pictures were completely out of focus to the point where nothing was visible. We have included one picture to illustrate this; absolutely nothing can be seen.We asked him to please take an in focus picture so that something could be seen. His reply was that he will now have to drive to Best Buy to purchase a digital camera. His device is perfectly capable of taking an in focus picture. Furthermore, any cellular phone manufactured within the past decade is perfectly capable of taking an in focus picture. The claim that he was "driving to Best Buy" to "buy a digital camera" was a grossly hyperbolic claim which was untrue, as we have not, to date, received any additional pictures of the item. We strive to take care of all of our clients. In the 230,000+ timepieces we have sold, there have, of course, been times where a product has had a blemish. We are more than happy to replace items for clients. Although we realize it to be a slight inconvenience, we do ask that a picture be included so that we can clarify. We apologize for any inconvenience, however, we will require an in focus picture, which can easily be taken, in order to take any action. Thank you.
All information contained in our previous response is accurate. The only way to have this nature of damage to the flying hour aperture is to turn the time backwards. This is not a normal timepiece as most people are accustomed to seeing. The hour is displayed as a dual window at the 12 o'clock position, and the watch only has one hand to display the minute, along with a subdial to display the second. The client damaged his timepiece due to misuse, and this is not covered under warranty as outlined in our policies, which the client has agreed to. In regards to the "PS" this client has included for a different timepiece, he did indeed receive an estimate for $932 for service. This other timepiece (RMA 148999) has been subjected to traumatic impact strong enough to physically break the barrel bridge, as well as the operating lever. The Omega timepiece he has sent in has clear signs of damage, inside and out.We clearly outline that damages due to misuse are not covered under warranty. The link to our warranty policies appears on every page of our website (even the search pages). Furthermore, this is outlined on our warranty card. Finally, no client can checkout on our website until they have read and agreed to said policies, and we have the client's digital agreement on file, as well as his signed agreement on the RMA form. In short, the client is well aware of the fact that his timepieces are damaged, and has clearly articulated through email that he wishes to solely communicate through the Revdex.com in a thinly veiled attempt to assuage our organization into paying for damages he incurred. We are sorry, however, there is no circumstance under which we can cover damages inflicted by the client under warranty. The same would apply had he purchased directly from the manufacturer, and applies to every industry. To use an analogy for the Omega, it would be equivalent to crashing a car into a brick wall, then taking it back to the dealership and telling them it's defective. For the Breitling, there is no external damage; the damage is internal from not utilizing the instrument in accordance with instructions.As outlined in our previous communication, we have recalled the client's Breitling timepiece and will return it with no services rendered. As the client has now made clear he does not wish to remit any payment, we will also recall the Omega timepiece so that he can have it assessed and serviced on his own accord. Thank you.
We will be happy to numerically address the client's numbered grievances:#1. The customer has cited that the timepiece did not work from the start, chose to remain silent for over two years, then reported it. We cannot accept his claim that it did not work since the very beginning. We would also like to point out that the watch arrived in a condition consistent with several years of wear. In fact, the customer had initially stated that the strap was damaged during the initial call. In fact, in an effort to conceal the full extent of wear and damage, the client had the strap removed prior to shipping the watch to us. The timepiece has major impact points on the case (with the primary, major impact point on the side of the case at the 8 o'clock position.)#2. The client wants "PROOF" that the estimate we have provided is accurate. The estimate itself is the proof. This is not a court of law, and we cannot enlist forensic specialists to "PROVE" that the estimate is correct. To use an analogy, if you go to Ford to get your car fixed, they provide you an estimate. It would be unreasonable to ask Ford to "prove" that the estimate is valid.#3: The client asserts that we don't post anything about our warranty being a limited warranty. First, all warranties offered by all companies are limited warranties. This is universal. Further, there is a link to our warranty policies on every web page of our website, Here is the link to our policies, clearly outlining all aspects of our warranty:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html#4. We recalled the timepiece in accordance with the client's request, at the time of his request. We have to await the return of the timepiece from the manufacturer in order to return it to the client. Contrary to the client's claim, it has not been 4 months since his request. Coincidentally, the timepiece arrived late last week and will be forwarded tot he client this week.
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.
We are sorry for any inconvenience. We are not attempting to brag regarding technology. It is standard operating procedure for most businesses which carry high value merchandise to have surveillance in place. Our video evidence clearly shows that a complete, factory sealed bracelet was shipped to the client, which did include the end pieces. We are neither able to issue a refund, nor a replacement, for the following reasons:#1. There is a 24 hour window to report any discrepancies after receipt. It took this client in excess of 2 weeks to report that "a piece is missing."#2. Despite the foregoing policy, we were more than willing to check and see if there was indeed an error made. As our surveillance system stores files for 60 days, we went back and checked the video. The video clearly demonstrates that this client received a complete bracelet with no components missing or omitted.Accordingly, we are not able to issue a refund, nor a replacement, of the item. We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you.
Complaint: 10854413
I am rejecting this response because:Four weeks to return an unprocessed order is absurd. If I were you, I would be on the telephone chewing out your service provider. If local, I would get in a car and drive over and pick up the watch. At this point, there is no logical excuse for not returning the watch.Until the watch arrives at my location, there is no way that this complaint should be close or considered resolved.
Regards,
W[redacted]
Complaint: 10853931
I am rejecting this response because: Sorry, I disagree and refuse to accept this as "normal business". It is wrong and misleading.
Regards,
R[redacted]
Complaint: 10583605
I am rejecting this response because: I guess when you can't back up poor service you just accuse people of lying. What I said about the transaction is true. What about proof of shipping the order to justify a restocking fee they can't provide this because it was never shipped. U will continue my conversations with chronic 24 and pass on these messages until I am refunded or they are pulled from that site
Regards,
[redacted]
This client was indeed shipped a brand new timepiece. However, by the time it was received back from the client, the timepiece was in very worn condition. Here is, verbatim, the exact description of the condition from the manufacturer: "Bracelet Scratched Bezel Scratched Case Back Scratched Crystal Scratched Dents " Although we are never provided details as to "why" the timepiece may require a movement maintenance (overhaul), the fact that the timepiece had "dents" typically means that impacts have caused problems which need to be rectified.The client has cited that he found that the cost should be far lower. The client is referencing the cost of a "basic service", whereas his timepiece requires a complete movement maintenance service (overhaul).The client's timepiece will be returned with no intervention within one week. Thank you.
Complaint: 11810835
I am rejecting this response because:I'm not arguing that the seller failed to display whether an item is in stock of under special order. What I'm arguing is that the seller failed to properly notify the MAJOR consequences associated with an special order item. In regards to the analogy utilized, no cashier will cite all aspects of the return policy upon checkout at any retail establishment. However, if the item is not an ordinary, such as a final sale (as in my case, a special order), the cashier would inform that the item cannot be returned. Displaying an item is not in stock is not the same as saying the item has different return policy as other items which is advertised to have no restocking fee.
Regards,
J[redacted]
Complaint: 11929718
I am rejecting this response because:First I have returned the watch per the instructions so no I am not keeping it while complaining. The Best Buy scenario that the business gave is far reaching and irrelevant to the complaint that has been made. They should have used the analogy of someone who goes to the local car dealership named Authentic Cars and gets shown a green car and to their excitement decides to make a purchase based on the car they are shown but then at time of delivery turns out the car is really black not green. Then once the customer raises the concern over the discrepancy in color everyone at Authentic Cars says "nope that is green you just have to look in the sunlight". This customer then shows that car to everyone he knows and they agree that the car is black not green. So the customer calls Authentic Cars back and expresses his displeasure and the car dealer has him talk to 4 different people who all keep saying the same thing but not really trying to resolve the problem. All the "customer service" people say is sorry we think its green because the sample we showed you from the manufacturer is green regardless of what the actual car color you received. It's the manufacturers problem that their sample car was much greener than what you you really get so we have no obligation to say its black even though deep down we know it really is. I mean after all what car deal named Authentic Cars doesn't stand behind a product they sell? So the used car sales manager finally gets on the phone and says the car is green regardless of you and all your friends so if you are not happy you can return your car but we will have to charge you something for our inconvenience even though we bait and switched you. I have attached pictures of the watch as shown on their website as well as a picture of the actual watch under the brightest light possible to mimic their argument that "in order to see the green you have to look at it in the sunlight". You can clearly see that the watch is not a slight variation from what was represented on the website at time of purchase. It's not 10% off color..it's not 25% off color its actually not even close to the color of the watch on the website. The watch bezel is so far from the color green in the picture that it can't even be compared to the actual watch received. The picture is clearly misleading of the actual color of the watch regardless of whether the seller intentionally set out to mislead consumers. I do not believe that is or was their intent I just think they handled the situation very poorly. So what I am complaining about is their inability to acknowledge that the color of the watch as represented at time of sale and the actual watch received have significant color differences then to charge me for what is in my opinion their error.In addition, I have attached screen shots of their website which includes the "authenticity" guarantee as well as other details. In no area is there a disclaimer that says the watch or watches sold may be different than what is shown online. Also there is no disclaimer that states anything regarding the pictures being more vibrant in color than the actual watch. You cannot show a picture whether manufacturers picture of one color and send another color. This could be considered deceptive advertising especially when you are offering an offer on that specific product.In summary, my statement about the fact that I would have kept the watch should they have acknowledged the picture is a variation from the actual product or offered as small discount. This was only stated so they could see there were ways to improve their customer experience rather than just continue to argue the color.I simply think it is reasonable that they pay for the shipping considering the facts stated above. This is a learning opportunity and they obviously want to just keep stating the same thing regardless of what the pictures show with or without sunlight.Regards,
Regards,
B[redacted]
This client has repeatedly informed us that our policies do not override laws. The law does not require any seller to provide a manufacturer warranty. No seller of watches at a discount online offers a manufacturer warranty (including Amazon, Overstock, Costco, etc.). The client has repeatedly advised us that our actions are illegal, and repeatedly demanded that we provide her with the applicable legislation. We have repeatedly provided her with the laws which clearly articulate that this is allowed, and absolutely legal (in fact, it's universal). She has repeatedly rebutted stating that our actions are not legal.Our policies are clearly posted on our website. The client cannot complete checkout until the policies are read and agreed upon. We have the client's digital agreement, time stamp, and IP address on file, confirming the policies have been read and agreed upon.We have provided the client with the applicable US Laws concerning the warranty of merchantability, which, again, is used by every company on the planet that re-sells timepieces online.Here is a link to our policies: http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html Here are the applicable excepts: "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." Here is the law which clearly allows this: UCC § 2-316 We are sorry this client feels this to be incorrect. However, every one of the 220,000+ timepieces we have sold to date have not come with a manufacturer warranty. The same can be said of the millions of watches sold on Amazon, as well as every other online non-authorized watch dealer in the world. In accordance with the foregoing, we will not be able to issue this client a manufacturer warranty.
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]
Complaint: 10847896
I am rejecting this response because:Just because the item number matches does not mean that the item was as pictured. The watch band in the picture is a different color than the watch band received. I was told and sent an email confirmation (copied below) by a representative of their company, Neal, that they would not charge me the restocking fee. They went back on this return agreement after receiving the merchandise back. I did not know until I received a partial refund and had to call. Essentially keeping my money because it left me with no recourse or ability to exchange for another item.At this time, I want the refund I was told I would get from Neal or credit for the restocking fee to purchase something else.
Regards,
D[redacted] From: [redacted]@authenticwatches.comDate: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:47:27 -0700Subject: Re: RMA # 2[redacted]2 InstructionsTo: [redacted]@hotmail.comDear D[redacted]Thank you for your email. We confirm that you will not be assessed a restocking fee on this return so long as the item is returned within 30 days from the original sale date in the same condition that it was shipped to you. If this is the case, you will only be assessed the initial shipping cost. Please let us know if you have any further questions or concerns.Best Regards,N[redacted]On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 4:35 PM, D[redacted] <[redacted]@hotmail.com> wrote:Hi N[redacted] -Thank you for this. Where is the note about the no restocking fee as discussed? I'd like to make sure I get that included in the communication.Thank you,D[redacted] From: [redacted]@authenticwatches.comDate: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 15:57:49 -0700Subject: RMA # 203822 InstructionsTo: d[redacted][email protected] D[redacted],Thank you for your inquiry regarding your return. In order to ensure timely processing, please follow all instructions on the Return Merchandise Authorization form, primarily that:- The item is shipped via the US POSTAL service or your local postal courier - Item must be returned within 30 days of purchase datePlease note that any deviation from the instructions can result in a significant delay in processing. As discussed, a link to the RMA form can be found below:http://www.authenticwatches.com/returns.htmlYour RMA number is: 203822 Once your returned item is received in good order, your RMA will be processed as expeditiously as possible. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you for choosing AuthenticWatches.com.Best Regards,NealAuthenticWatches.com###-###-#### +1 805 823 8888-- --- http://www.AuthenticWatches.com--- ###-###-#### or ###-###-####�...⇄ AK, HI, International--- Free overnight shipping. No membership required.--- Save 3% on domestic orders under $5000 when paying with a wire transfer.--- AuthenticWatches.com - Keeping the world on time.--- The leading online source for name brand watches.--- All price quotes are valid for 24 hours.--- Customer Satisfaction - not just a priority, a promise.--- Be the first to hear about special discounts and news by signing up to our mailing list at:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-exclusive-offers.html
Complaint: 11440103
I am rejecting this response because: Quite simply, they are lying. This is their M.O.--read their responses to other complaints. Interesting that after holding my watch hostage for over THREE MONTHS, they respond with a lengthy diatribe in less than THREE HOURS... The only reason I didn't include the rest of their shoddy warranty is I was limited in characters allowed. A few facts: My watch stopped moving (a "movement" issue stated as covered) after less than a YEAR. After TWO months, it was explained to me that it had been sent to an "authorized" repair shop, and they would not have any update for at least another month. When I asked to speak to the shop--to understand what was really going on--they refused to provide any names or contacts for me to speak with--saying their companies they deal with would NEVER let them do so...sound shady?? I think so. After waiting the additional month--I was informed that said technician/shop has evaluated my watch and determined that--big surprise--it needs a complete overhaul...after less than a year...for a brand I have owned (and still do) for years and have NEVER needed this type of service. IF they use so-called "authorized repair shops", there should be no issue with me speaking with the shop to better understand what is happening. They do not allow. Furthermore--while I have no idea whom I was REALLY speaking to a month or so ago--he told me point blank he was the OWNER. For whomever crafted the response to state I "fabricated" that story is further evidence of the shady business practices Authenticwatches.com employs. To paint ME as a LIAR is unconscionable. I will not let this go. I suggest you call some of the others complaining and SPEAK LIVE with them...ask them to tell their story...it will likely reflect the situation I have related, and you will see a pattern that this is NOT an outlying situation--but the RULE when they sell shoddy merchandise. The other aspect that has bothered me is that--throughout this entire process--there has never been one iota of responsibility taken by the retailer, or even contrition on the hassle their system causes their customers...everything is someone elses fault and no doubt their next ploy will be to say that I somehow misused or mishandled my watch...which--I can tell you right now--is not at all the case. The watch has never been dropped, under water, or even bumped...when I sent it, it had no discernible dents or scratches or missing pieces...BOTTOM LINE: THESE GUYS ARE CROOKS WHO REFUSE TO HONOR THEIR SO-CALLED WARRANTY OR STAND BEHIND THEIR PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICE. Again, their A+ rating is a SHAM, and devalues the rating provided to companies who truly EARNED and DESERVE such a rating. This is a joke. I am happy to speak live to either Revdex.com or even Authenticwatches to resolve. Until such resolution--I will maintain they are criminal in their actions and intent.
Regards,
[redacted]
This client purchased a special order timepiece. The lead time is clearly posted as "Usually Ships Within 3 Months" in red lettering immediately above the price. In addition, the same text "Usually Ships Within 3 Months" is written at the top of the item description in black and white.The lead time...
for the item is clearly and conspicuously posted multiple times, in multiple locations. The client has also stated that we do not post that there would be a 10% cancellation fee, then clarifying that we have "hidden" it.Our system does not allow for checkout on our website until our policies have been read and agreed to. This client agreed to our policies on 10/27/16 and we have his electronic agreement and IP address on record.All companies have policies, and no company can possibly list all of their policies on every page of the website. As with every other online company, we have a link to our policies for all to review. The return policy that the client is referencing is in bold on the top of every single page of our website. In that return policy, it does indeed state that we assess a 10% cancellation fee for cancelled special orders. This is not done arbitrarily. In a business where are markup is only about 5-10%, and special order items are typically 25% more than in stock item, we lose a substantial amount of money on cancelled special orders. Once we place the orders with our vendors, we cannot cancel them. Therefore, we now have to list the item at a price that is not competitive (as it was listed at a special order price, far higher than in stock prices).We apologize, however, we will not be able to issue any further refunds as outlined in our policies.
Complaint: 11557996
I am rejecting this response because: I am concerned as they are saying they have no way of tracking my check and considering I did not received the last one they claim was mailed I therefore would like to keep this open until I have the check.
Regards,
A[redacted]
The client called to report an issue with his timepiece and was issued a return authorization for warranty service. The client was upset about return shipping fees. Although the purchase was outside the time-frame outlined in our policy for a waiver of fees, we waived the fees as a one-time customer...
courtesy in order to satisfy the client. Upon receiving the waiver, the client demanded we send a shipping label. We are sorry, however, we are unable to send a shipping label. Upon being informed he could not receive a label, he informed us that he will never purchase from us again, adding that he buys a luxury watch every three weeks. He threatened to report us as a "scam" to the Revdex.com. We are sorry, however, we are unable to simply grant any request a client may ask based on threats of fictitious reports. We have no doubt that any prudent person will be able to determine that companies which commit a "scam" typically don't accept funds and ship the correct item in the hopes that they may one day be able to not provide a return label should an item require warranty service.We are sorry the client is upset, however, we have already waived the return shipping fee for him, and we are unable to provide a label. We apologize again for any inconvenience.
Complaint: 11929718
I am rejecting this response because:Because this business simply keeps ignoring the fact that this watch is not what is represented I took the time to reach out to Breitling Corporate office and shared my experience and pictures of both watches with them. As a result the National Sales Manager contacted me back and clarified that in fact this is not the same watch as he pointed out the discrepancies between the watches and also stated that the watch bezel looks to be black. I have attached his email for your review however this is just a quote to provide context."In the photo of the actual watch you sent, the hands on the sub dials (small dials at 3 and 9) are not silver as they are pictured on the watch on the site. The hands on the actual are red and the bezel appears to be black, not green".Yes it is pretty clear what is going on here. A company that claims to sell authentic watches actually sells watches that are not as authentic as they represent. If Breitling feels the watch is not the same then I am going to assume they know what they are talking about. So while I thank you for your offer to credit my card less fees we will be disputing all charges because of your failure to send me what we ordered. This is allowed per the rules of my credit card to protect consumers from fraud. In fact I am considering filing a claim in court for false advertising and the obtain a refund for the fees I spent to ship the watch back as a matter of principle and to avoid others from having the same issue in the future.I simply can't wait until you get the package and verify that the watch is not the same as stated by Breitling! CheckMic drop!
Regards,
B[redacted]
Complaint: 11012634
I am rejecting this response because:
AW have been selective in their response.A money order CANNOT bounce. They have omitted to explain/comment on why I was told "it doesn't matter" when I questioned why I was given conflicting accounts.They have not and cannot justify delays taking 7 months and they are correct that they reduced the repair fee by $200 to compensate me for the appalling service. There were indeed times in the 7 months that I fearedI would never see my watch or my money again and I expressed that sentiment to AW's General Manager. When the watch was returned to me the box contained no paperwork explaining what work had been carried out on the watch so it is interesting to read AW's summary of the work carried out in their response. I have e mailed them requesting this information in documentary form for my records.As a post script, and since lodging my original complaint, I have now received a bill from FEDEX for £21.00 for admin fee because AW did not provide sufficient detail for my timepiece to clear customs when it was returned after repair. I had paid an additional $50 for the shipping. I have spoken to AW about this additional expense. They are refusing to cover this cost.My watch is currently with a local Breitling dealer being checked to see if the work that I have been billed for has indeed been carried out.
Regards,
K[redacted]
This client did indeed purchase a Rolex timepiece. He has three grievances which we will be happy to address:#1 - The instruction booklet was in Italian. - We purchase timepieces from Authorized Dealers and ship them exactly as they arrive from the dealer. The instructions were indeed in Italian....
Upon notifying us, we asked that he return the booklet and we will ship him a booklet in English. We understand that this may be an inconvenience, however, we are not able to simply ship out items without receiving the incorrect item back. The client's purported outrage for having to be returned is unfortunate. In all business, if there is an item that has to be returned for replacement, it must first be returned before it can be replaced. This is universal in every retail business. Further, the hyperbolic claim citing he is unable to open the buckle of the watch because his manual is not in English will not be alleviated. Watch manuals don't have instructions on how to open a buckle, as this is a simple action of pulling the buckle. #2 - The warranty card was not for the correct term. - The client is indeed correct. Rolex timepieces come with a 6 year warranty by default. He opted to remit payment with Amazon Payments, for which we offer an additional year of coverage. This was simply an oversight, and the client was immediately mailed a new warranty card denoting the 7 year coverage term. We apologize for any inconvenience. #3 - He claims there is a blemish on the timepiece. - We asked that the client please email photos of the blemish. Although this may seem unnecessary to the client, history has shown that many times a "blemish" is reported, it turns out there isn't one. We have several complaints of a watch arriving with "water bubbles in the glass", and it's just a matter of the client not peeling off the protective sticker. We have complaints of "a dent in the case", and it turns out that it's just a speck of dirt. This is why we ask for photographs so that we can clarify, and possibly rectify immediately. In response to our request for photographs, the client emailed us indicating he didn't have a camera. He then stated he was able to take pictures with his "Amazon fire". The pictures were completely out of focus to the point where nothing was visible. We have included one picture to illustrate this; absolutely nothing can be seen.We asked him to please take an in focus picture so that something could be seen. His reply was that he will now have to drive to Best Buy to purchase a digital camera. His device is perfectly capable of taking an in focus picture. Furthermore, any cellular phone manufactured within the past decade is perfectly capable of taking an in focus picture. The claim that he was "driving to Best Buy" to "buy a digital camera" was a grossly hyperbolic claim which was untrue, as we have not, to date, received any additional pictures of the item. We strive to take care of all of our clients. In the 230,000+ timepieces we have sold, there have, of course, been times where a product has had a blemish. We are more than happy to replace items for clients. Although we realize it to be a slight inconvenience, we do ask that a picture be included so that we can clarify. We apologize for any inconvenience, however, we will require an in focus picture, which can easily be taken, in order to take any action. Thank you.
All information contained in our previous response is accurate. The only way to have this nature of damage to the flying hour aperture is to turn the time backwards. This is not a normal timepiece as most people are accustomed to seeing. The hour is displayed as a dual window at the 12 o'clock position, and the watch only has one hand to display the minute, along with a subdial to display the second. The client damaged his timepiece due to misuse, and this is not covered under warranty as outlined in our policies, which the client has agreed to. In regards to the "PS" this client has included for a different timepiece, he did indeed receive an estimate for $932 for service. This other timepiece (RMA 148999) has been subjected to traumatic impact strong enough to physically break the barrel bridge, as well as the operating lever. The Omega timepiece he has sent in has clear signs of damage, inside and out.We clearly outline that damages due to misuse are not covered under warranty. The link to our warranty policies appears on every page of our website (even the search pages). Furthermore, this is outlined on our warranty card. Finally, no client can checkout on our website until they have read and agreed to said policies, and we have the client's digital agreement on file, as well as his signed agreement on the RMA form. In short, the client is well aware of the fact that his timepieces are damaged, and has clearly articulated through email that he wishes to solely communicate through the Revdex.com in a thinly veiled attempt to assuage our organization into paying for damages he incurred. We are sorry, however, there is no circumstance under which we can cover damages inflicted by the client under warranty. The same would apply had he purchased directly from the manufacturer, and applies to every industry. To use an analogy for the Omega, it would be equivalent to crashing a car into a brick wall, then taking it back to the dealership and telling them it's defective. For the Breitling, there is no external damage; the damage is internal from not utilizing the instrument in accordance with instructions.As outlined in our previous communication, we have recalled the client's Breitling timepiece and will return it with no services rendered. As the client has now made clear he does not wish to remit any payment, we will also recall the Omega timepiece so that he can have it assessed and serviced on his own accord. Thank you.
We will be happy to numerically address the client's numbered grievances:#1. The customer has cited that the timepiece did not work from the start, chose to remain silent for over two years, then reported it. We cannot accept his claim that it did not work since the very beginning. We would also like to point out that the watch arrived in a condition consistent with several years of wear. In fact, the customer had initially stated that the strap was damaged during the initial call. In fact, in an effort to conceal the full extent of wear and damage, the client had the strap removed prior to shipping the watch to us. The timepiece has major impact points on the case (with the primary, major impact point on the side of the case at the 8 o'clock position.)#2. The client wants "PROOF" that the estimate we have provided is accurate. The estimate itself is the proof. This is not a court of law, and we cannot enlist forensic specialists to "PROVE" that the estimate is correct. To use an analogy, if you go to Ford to get your car fixed, they provide you an estimate. It would be unreasonable to ask Ford to "prove" that the estimate is valid.#3: The client asserts that we don't post anything about our warranty being a limited warranty. First, all warranties offered by all companies are limited warranties. This is universal. Further, there is a link to our warranty policies on every web page of our website, Here is the link to our policies, clearly outlining all aspects of our warranty:http://www.authenticwatches.com/authenticwatches-warranty.html#4. We recalled the timepiece in accordance with the client's request, at the time of his request. We have to await the return of the timepiece from the manufacturer in order to return it to the client. Contrary to the client's claim, it has not been 4 months since his request. Coincidentally, the timepiece arrived late last week and will be forwarded tot he client this week.
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.
We are sorry for any inconvenience. We are not attempting to brag regarding technology. It is standard operating procedure for most businesses which carry high value merchandise to have surveillance in place. Our video evidence clearly shows that a complete, factory sealed bracelet was shipped to the client, which did include the end pieces. We are neither able to issue a refund, nor a replacement, for the following reasons:#1. There is a 24 hour window to report any discrepancies after receipt. It took this client in excess of 2 weeks to report that "a piece is missing."#2. Despite the foregoing policy, we were more than willing to check and see if there was indeed an error made. As our surveillance system stores files for 60 days, we went back and checked the video. The video clearly demonstrates that this client received a complete bracelet with no components missing or omitted.Accordingly, we are not able to issue a refund, nor a replacement, of the item. We apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you.
Complaint: 10854413
I am rejecting this response because:Four weeks to return an unprocessed order is absurd. If I were you, I would be on the telephone chewing out your service provider. If local, I would get in a car and drive over and pick up the watch. At this point, there is no logical excuse for not returning the watch.Until the watch arrives at my location, there is no way that this complaint should be close or considered resolved.
Regards,
W[redacted]