We will be happy to address the client's concerns: #1 - The client cites that it's a "movement issue" and should be covered. However, the warranty is clear; movement maintenance is not covered. The client claims it shouldn't require a movement maintenance, however, we are unable to consider the client's claims and give them a higher regard than that of the actual manufacturer (unless he is a certified watchmaker, CW21 or higher, currently employed by TAG Heuer). In accordance with the actual report of the actual, qualified, and authorized service center, the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service. - Reality: We can't tell the authorized service center that they are wrong, because our customer says so. #2 - Assuming that the assertion that the client's other watches have never required a maintenance service is true, it has no bearing on what this timepiece requires. He may have not impacted his other timepieces as he has this one; they may have not undergone the same situations as this one has. The other timepieces can be quartz, which require maintenance far less often, etc. - Reality: We can't tell the authorized service center "the client's other watches haven't needed an overhaul, so you're wrong; this one doesn't need an overhaul either." #3 - Yes, the client is fabricating his story completely when he asserts someone told him they are the owner. We invite anyone to call us at (805) 823-8888 and ask for the owner; there isn't one. #4 - Revdex.com's rating is not inaccurate, dishonest, nor complicit. Yes, we do indeed have about 60 complaints, but as outlined in our previous response, those complaints are out of 80,000 orders in that period of time, leaving us with a 99.93% positive, an A+ by any standards. While we strive to make every client happy, we are not able to simply hand out free services or products when a client has a grievance. A minuscule minority of individuals do not understand that warranties have terms, and are very upset to hear that their issue is not covered. While we wish we could please every single one of our clients, we realize that some individuals will not be pleased and will post complaints. #5 - The warranty is not "Criminal". It is a standard issue warranty. All warranties have terms; this is a universal practice. To address the alleged criminality of our standard warranty of merchantability, we are happy to inform the client that said terms outlined in our warranty of merchantability are in full compliance with the laws regulating such as outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States (UCC § 2-316 et. seq.) We are sorry, however, we are unable to service this client's timepiece under warranty. Thank you.
We are sorry to hear the client is upset. However, the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic. If you tell the store you're going to that you purchased the timepiece online, they will not be pleased to hear that they lost a...
multi-thousand dollar sale to an online competitor, and will not help you.As the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic, we can give no gravity to the consumer protection law cited by the client, as it would not be applicable, given that the timepiece sold was indeed authentic.. The client assumes it's not authentic, and that assumption is incorrect. Contrary to the client's claim, she has not submitted any documentation from an authorized dealer's letterhead citing that the model she received, with the serial number she received, is not authentic. The client is free to ship the timepiece directly to Cartier for verification of authenticity, or can simply go to any other authorized Cartier dealer, say they just got this watch as a gift, and ask them to size it. As the client has cited laws she feels pertain to her grievance, we would like to point out that one of the attached documents she has submitted is the RMA form. The bottom paragraph stipulates that the client will agree to and abide by our policies, and she has indeed signed said document. Our policies outline that there is a 10% restocking fee on any item over $5,000. (The policies are clear, and are posted on our website, which the client is obligated to agree to prior to purchase.) Having agreed to said policies, the client is limited in remedy she may seek pursuant to UCC § 2-719. To summarize, the timepiece this client received is 100% authentic. There are several options the client has to prove this, all of which she summarily dismisses (ship it to Cartier, go to any other authorized dealer, etc.) The client wishes to return the item for a full refund, which cannot be done in accordance with our policies. If the timepiece arrives back to us brand new, with all tags attached, then the client will be refunded less a 10% restocking fee, in accordance with our policies. Alternatively, the client may take the timepiece to any other authorized dealer, or ship it to Cartier, and she will easily be able to have the timepiece authenticated (as it is an authentic timepiece.) Thank you.
This client purchased his timepiece on 10/13/14, and he did indeed return it approximately 2 months later with an issue. The issue was that he impacted the timepiece, causing a screw inside the movement to come loose and obstruct the rotor. Although this is not covered under warranty, we had it...
quickly serviced as a one time courtesy.He sent the timepiece back one year and seven months after purchase, citing it was gaining 5 minutes per day. Upon evaluation, it was determined that the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service, which is not covered under warranty, and the client was forwarded an estimate. Movement maintenance services are not covered under warranty, as outlined in our policies, as well as on our warranty card. It is not customary to dissect the "Movement Maintenance", as the causes for why it is necessary can vary. However, in this client's case, given his litany of responses and demands, as well as his repeated prevarication regarding merchantability of the timepiece, we will be happy to provide the cause for the movement maintenance service requirement:The timepiece has been impacted (yet again).The timepiece has been subjected to an impact, causing damage to the hairspring, necessitating a movement maintenance service to rectify.With regards to the client's demands, we have copy/pasted a portion of his email:"I'd like to receive a merchantable watch that functions as intended or a refund in the amount of $500 million - approximately $1280 of which would be for the watch, and the remainder for time wasted."We cannot repair the timepiece free of charge every time the client damages the timepiece, as our warranties also clearly outline that damages are not covered under warranty. We cannot issue this client a refund, as he has worn the timepiece in excess of one year, and has damaged the timepiece. Our policies clearly outline that a timepiece cannot be returned once worn. Finally, we cannot refund the client $500 Million as he has previously demanded, as we cannot see any reason why the client would be entitled to $500 million for damaging his timepiece. The timepiece has been returned to the client with no services rendered due to his refusal to remit payment for the services required. Thank you.
Complaint: 10854413
I am rejecting this response because:A couple of weeks? Read your emails. I requested that the watch be returned on September 17. It is now October 13 and I have still not been notified that it is being returned. A couple of weeks -- right. It is utterly absurd that it should take so long to return my watch once I told them not to repair it. I know of NO business that would take three plus weeks to return an item. My exact words in the email of September 17 were, "I would like the repair shop to perform the warranty repair without the
overhaul. If that is not possible, then return the watch to me
immediately." The only threats came when I waited two week before inquiring and was told it would be another week.You tell me. At what point does it become unreasonable to request that something be returned immediately, unprocessed. Two week? Four weeks? Six months? A year? At some point, it becomes stolen property. These people seem to think that it is completely arbitrary and is acceptable for them to return the watch when ever they feel like it.Time is up. I want my watch returned, and I want it return NOW. If they need to make a phone call to Istanbul and tell them to ship it back directly to me, then do it.
Warmest regards,
W[redacted]
This client placed an order on our website for a discontinued item. We immediately contacted the client to apologize, and informed him the item was discontinued and could not be obtained.We offered the client alternative, similar models, and offered additional discounts. He did not want any...
other item, and the client's order was cancelled accordingly. We would be happy to accede to the clients demands to fulfill an order for this discontinued item, however, given the fact that the item is discontinued and no longer attainable, we are unable to do so. This isn't a "decision" we have made; we simply are no longer able to obtain this item because it has been discontinued.The client responded with a litany of emails demanding we fulfill our contractual obligations to supply an item. We have no such contractual obligations. We pointed out to the client that he agreed to our policies which clearly articulate this. The client responded with:"We will continue our conversation through Revdex.com. Your decision to cancel a confirmed order after charging my credit card is a clear breach of contractual agreement to meet your delivery obligation. "Here is a link to our policies:http://www.authenticwatches.com/info.htmlHere is the applicable clause, verbatim:"AuthenticWatches.com reserves the right to refuse service or cancel any order at it's sole discretion. "The system does not allow a client to checkout without agreeing to our policies. The client agreed to our policies on Fri Oct 16, 2015 at precisely 19:11:34 PDT. We have the client's IP address and electronic capture of agreement on record.Here is the link to the item the client purchased:http://www.authenticwatches.com/breitling-navitimer-a2332212-b635-435x...⇄ are sorry, however, there is no further action which can be taken. This order has been cancelled, and the client has not been charged. Thank you.
This client purchased an IWC watch. As quoted in his own complaint, the item description says:"- Mahagony Gift Box & PDF Copy of Manual"The client contends this to be misleading. We do not see this to be misleading; it is a very clear and concise description of what will come with the timepiece....
No where in the description was there any mention of the timepiece coming with the original manufacturer box and manual. No where was there any indication that the foregoing description was for any additional or excess items. The description clearly posted which box the watch will come with.The reason this particular timepiece did not come with a manufacturer box and manual (most do, and are described as such on individual item descriptions) is that watches are shipped separately from boxes and manuals. When watches come from the manufacturer, they come as shipped from the factory, in a clear, hard plastic box (referred to as a "coffin" in the industry.) From time to time, shipments are lost or damaged. In this case, this watch was part of a series that had a shipment of boxes lost. The insurance claim was paid, and the price of the watch was further lowered because of the missing manufacturer box.The client also contends that the watch is missing the "Authenticity Card". There is no such thing as an "Authenticity Card". It simply does not exist. The only way to check authenticity of a timepiece is to have it inspected by a local authorized dealer. The client is more than welcome to take the timepiece to a local authorized dealer for authentication, or to ship it directly to IWC for authentication:
IWC
Richemont Technical Center
[redacted] Trinity Boulevard, Suite **
Fort Worth, TX 76155
The client also contends that the timepieces "dial" "fell off". The client broke the crown of the timepiece. The fact that the client does not have a card (which is non-existent), nor a manufacturer box (which was not advertised), has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that he broke his crown. The crown was not broken by the mahogany gift box, nor was it broken due to omission of a card. It was broken by exerting excess force, either by hand, or by traumatic impact.Whereas AuthenticWatches.com does not have the original manufacturer box for this timepiece; nor was it advertised to come with the manufacturer's box; nor was the price paid for the item inclusive of the box; AuthenticWatches.com cannot send this customer a manufacturer box or manual.Whereas the "Authenticity Card" the client is requesting is a non-existent entity; AuthenticWatches.com cannot send the client an item which does not exist.We are not able to issue any refund, for any amount, on a timepiece which has been worn. We apologize for any perceived inconvenience the client has endured, however, AuthenticWatches.com did indeed ship the watch purchased, exactly as advertised, and cannot offer any concessions nor compensation for the client's grievances. Thank you.
7/23/2015
Complaint
On April 8, 2015 I sent a watch into Authenticwatches.com for a routing annual cleaning along w/ my request for:- Sonar Cleaning- Review of minor time loss- Missing Illuminating MarkersThis company promises and average 1 month turnaround service, however it was not until June 25, 2015 that I heard...
from them with an email asking for "$1,135. Please remit payment for this amount via personal check or money order"The essentially blamed the delay on the manufacturer / dealer and stated that the watch basically needed a complete overhaul ("new dial, new hands, new crown, and a complete movement servicing").I asked for options and they told me I can either move forward w/ service or have the watch returned as they received it. I chose to have the watch sent back as I had sent it.The watch arrived w/ a broken bracelet w/ missing links and pins as well as a missing external dial marker.Upon contacting Authenticwatches immediately upon receiving my watch on July 9, 2015 I contacted Authenticwatches with my findings.I was immediately transferred to their GM, [redacted] G (did not get last name), who yelled at me and told me "this is how you sent us the watch! we returned it exactly how you sent it! I don't know what to tell you and you'll speak to no one else because I'm the GM!"Needless to say, [redacted] did not own his companies mishap, did not want to discuss and essentially insinuated that I am lying and cheating him...I've already contacted Oris (manufacturer) who claims authenticwatches is not a licensed dealer (which authenticwatches claims to be w/ certificate of authenticity I was initially provided)I am now stuck w/ a $4,000 watch that is broken and in order to wear I must spend a minimum of $400 just for the bracelet, let alone missing indicator on face of watch.
Desired Resolution
I would like the watch repaired with the pieces that were absolutely not an issue when sent to Authenticwatches.com:- Bracelet / Band- Indicator on Face (external)of watchI would also like this to be properly logged as a negative mark against this business for any consumer to see in an effort to...
make them aware before purchasing from Authenticwatches.comI'm perfectly fine w/ the missing internal illuminator and the slight loss in time (which I can happily manually update as I please).
This client did indeed purchase a timepiece. He wore the timepiece for two weeks, and then contacted us to inform us that the timepiece had ceased to function. Although we certainly understand the client's frustrations and desire for a new timepiece, we cannot exchange the timepiece for the...
client once it has been used or worn. This would be the exact same scenario had he purchased it directly from Cartier. Once a timepiece is worn, it falls under the warranty, not return policy, and must be serviced under warranty. We are sorry, however, we can neither exchange, nor refund, this client's timepiece. It is currently undergoing warranty service, and will be returned to the client once service has been completed.
All information stated in our previous response is accurate. We cannot issue refunds on used timepieces, and will not be able to issue the client a refund within 7 days. The timepiece is being serviced under warranty, in accordance with the terms the client agreed to upon checkout. The time-line being claimed is completely untrue. He signed and dated his RMA form on 8/4/2015, meaning he sent it on or after that date. The package arrived on 8/13/2015. Today is 9/30/2015. In his rebuttal, he claims "it has nearly been 90 days now". It has actually been precisely 47 days. That is nowhere near the 90 days the client claims.Threats of legal action do not alleviate the client of his contractual obligations to agree with our policies, and have no effect on the course of action we will take.Our warranty of merchantability is pretty standard, and is in full compliance with the law (UCC § 2-316). Furthermore, our system will not allow for checkout until a client has agreed to our policies, The client electronically agreed to said policies on July 15th, 2015 at precisely 8:04:01 pm PST. Finally, he physically signed the RMA form agreeing to our policies, and dated his signature to be on 8/4/2015. The fact that he has agreed to our policies, both electronically, and via wet signature, clearly indicate acceptance of said terms, precluding him from being able to successfully pursue any legal action due to his limited remedies as contractually agreed upon (UCC § 2-719).We will return this client's timepiece once warranty servicing has been complete. Thank you.
This client has requested a manufacturer warranty card. Neither we, nor any other online retailer, provide a manufacturer warranty card with any timepiece. Every page of our website has a link to our warranty policies, clearly outlining this universal practice implemented by all sellers, worldwide....
What we and every other online watch vendor in the world offer is our own warranty of merchantability. The client agreed to this upon checkout 2 years ago. We are sorry, however, we will not be able to provide this client a manufacturer warranty.
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.
We are sorry to hear that this client is so upset. We have looked into this, and have spoken to the client, however, we haven't been able to effectively communicate a few basic facts to this client. Here are the facts of this case:This client ordered the following timepiece: Breitling...
A27363A3/B823-140AThe client was shipped the same timepiece: Breitling A27363A3/B823-140AThe client believes that the bezel on his timepiece should be greener than it is. He further asserts that "our" photograph is misleading.This timepiece has been manufactured exactly this way by the manufacturer. The representative picture is the manufacturer's depiction of the timepiece. Therefore, we have shown the client the manufacturer's picture and we have sent him the manufacturer's timepiece of the item which was pictured. The client contends that it's not as green as he would like it to be. We do not have any control over which hue of green Breitling has chosen to manufacture that timepiece. We have no control over which hue of green Breitling chose to illustrate in their stock photo.This client contends that there is some form of malfeasance or misrepresentation on our part, because he feels the picture shows the bezel to be greener than it actually is. The client further contends that we must "admit" to some sort of wrongdoing. There has been no wrongdoing on our part whatsoever to which we can admit.The client cites "I would have even considered keeping the watch if they admitted the error / accepted responsibility". We have not made any errors for which we can accept responsibility. The picture is directly from the manufacturer, and the timepiece he ordered is as manufactured by Breitling. We do not have the ability, directive, nor desire to alter a manufacturer's timepiece. There is no "greener" version that could have been purchased at any authorized dealer. This client is faulting our company for having sold him exactly what he ordered. A brighter green hued version simply doesn't exist.We are not certain what the client's ultimate request is, as we do indeed offer a full refund (less shipping). If he is dissatisfied, he can return the item for a full refund less shipping. To illustrate this scenario in an analogy to simplify what's taken place:A person goes to Best Buy and buys a Go Pro Hero 5 Black camera. He goes home, opens the package, and realizes it's a very dark charcoal color, and not pure black. He then posts negative reviews about Best Buy calling the store a scam. He creates posts on his social media page starting with "SCAM ALERT", citing that he was falsely misled by Best Buy, because it clearly says "Hero 5 Black", yet it isn't PURE black in color. Best Buy can't admit some sort of fault, because the picture on the box is from Go Pro, and the item inside is from Go Pro. The store offers him a full refund, but the client is demanding that he is compensated for his time, and for his gas money for driving to the store round trip. The store cannot compensate for transportation. The client therefore posts negative reviews and Revdex.com complaints claiming that Best Buy is a SCAM, having perpetuated some sort of fraud.The example in this analogy makes an equal amount of sense as the grievance this client has outlined. We do our best to take care of our clients, however, this client is demanding "admission" of fault and "compensation". We have done nothing wrong, having shipped him exactly what he ordered. If he is "willing" to keep it if only he could get an "admission", then we are struggling to understand where there is a problem. I cannot imagine keeping a multi-thousand dollar item I am unhappy with, so long as a seller that did nothing wrong admits that he/she did something wrong.We have a very easy return policy. If the client is dissatisfied with the item, he is welcome to return it for a full refund less shipping provided it has not been worn or used and the tags have not been removed or cut. We are unable to offer any further "compensation". We apologize for any inconvenience.
We have a 30 day return policy, which is among the most lenient return policies in the business (most companies offer 7 day or 14 day policies). If an item is returned after the expiration of the returns period, we are not able to issue a full refund. Our policies indicate that the item must be...
received back within 30 days of shipment. The client feels that our policies should be in line with the IRS; they are not. We are www.AuthenticWatches.com, and neither our policies, practices, nor nature of entity are similar to the IRS. We do not have a "postmarked by" return policy.This client's returned items arrived after the 30 day returns period had expired. Accordingly, the client cannot be issued a full refund, and was issued a refund less 10%. We are not able to refund this client any additional sum. Thank you.
Complaint: 10563284
I am rejecting this response because:I am writing in reference to the above referenced complaint. I received your letter, which contained the response of Authentic Watches.Com, to my complaint today. I am immediately responding to ask that you keep this complaint open.As I noted in my March 30, 2015 letter to you with attachments, I purchased an alleged Cartier Roadster XL W6206019 from AuthenticWatches.com on or about March 19, 2015 for the price of $6,275.00. On the AuthenticWatches.com website, the company represented that it was an authentic, BRAND NEW" Cartier Roadster watch. After receipt of the watch, my husband went into the C.D. Peacock store in Oak Brook, Illinois to have a link taken out of the watch. The Watchmaker at C.D. Peacock, [redacted], indicated to my husband that he did not believe the watch was authentic. As a result, the watchmaker would not modify or alter the watch in any way.On March 30, 2015, I called Authentic Watches to obtain a return authorization number and to confirm that, when I returned the watch, I would receive the full purchase price credited to my credit card. The company indicated to me that, unless I had something in writing from C.. Peacock saying that the watch was not authentic, they would not refund the full purchase price of the watch. Although I disagreed, I immediately went to C.. Peacock and obtained the documentation requested from C.D. Peacock. The Watchmaker, [redacted], confirmed that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective because of the big gap between the case and the bezel at 1012. I included a C.D. Peacock document setting forth Mr. [redacted] views that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective and his business card with my complaint to the Revdex.com and the materials that I submitted in connection with my watch return to Authentic Watches.com.According to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) confirmation, Authentic Watches received the watch back from me on April, 2015, the same day as the Revdex.coms letter was sent to me containing Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint. Accordingly, Authentic Watches could not have reviewed the documentation that I submitted with the watch, nor examined the watch prior to responding to the Revdex.com complaint.In any event, I have reviewed Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint and concerns (which I received from the Revdex.com today), and it is not valid for a variety of reasons. First, the response indicates that I have not submitted documentation from an authorized dealer saying the watch that I received is not authentic. That is false. I did submit a statement from C.D. Peacock, which is an authorized Cartier dealer, stating that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective. Accordingly, Authentic Watches’ statement is not accurate.Second, Authentic Watches states that I can ship the watch to Cartier to get it authenticated. That claim is not true. I had only a limited number of days, per Authentic Watchess return policies, to return the watch to Authentic Watches or I would risk full forfeiture of my $6,275.00 payment. As a result, I had no meaningful choice but to ship the alleged Cartier Roadster back to Authentic Watches as soon as possible. Authentic Watches, who is now in possession of the alleged Cartier Roadster and has been since April, 2015 according to the attached USPS record of receipt, should be required to ship the watch that they sent to me to Cartier to get it authenticated. If that occurs and Cartier confirms it is authentic, I am happy to forfeit the 10% restocking” fee. In the alternative, Authentic Watches.com claims that they receive designer watches from Authorized Dealers. If Authentic Watches received the watch that they sold to me from an authorized dealer, they should be more than willing to share with me copies of the transaction documents from that transaction to prove to me that the watch is authentic and that it came from an authorized dealer. They have not done so. Authentic Watches.com cannot have it both ways. They must prove the watch is authentic (since they represent it is authentic on their website and such a claim is actually in their name). That is what I paid for. They should not be allowed to shift the burden to me, the consumer, to prove that the watch is a fake (which I did do through C.D. Peacock) but then insist that I need to send back the watch very quickly to insure that I get at least 90% of my purchase price. Nevertheless, even under their unconscionable standard, I have already proven that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. It is not what I paid for. The burden should now be on Authentic Watches to show to the Revdex.com (and a court if necessary) that the watch is authentic. This is their business, and they should have no problem doing so if the watch is actually authentic.Third, Authentic Watches’ response to the Revdex.com claims that my contractual remedies purportedly are limited to 90% of the purchase price of the watch pursuant to UCC 2-719. That is also incorrect. I do not agree that this purported limitation applies in this situation because the watch is not authentic, according to a professional watchmaker at an authorizedCartier dealer. Nevertheless, even if you assume for the purposes of this complaint that Authentic Watches’ argument under the UCC should be entertained, there is no contractual limitation where such a limitation is unconscionable. UCC 2-7193), or Californias equivalent (Wests Ann. Cal. Com. Code 2719(3)), provides that “[c]onsequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.” Here, such a limitation is unconscionable. As courts have found, “[u]nconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of a meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” See, e.g., Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Here, Authentic Watches drafted their policies and the contract at issue. The parties do not have equal bargaining power, and there was no negotiation over the contract terms.This situation is strikingly similar to the AM Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. case in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment involving an unconscionable and unenforceable disclaimer of warranty:“Since a products performance forms the fundamental basis for a sales contract, it is patently unreasonable to assume that a buyer would purchase a standardized mass produced product from an industry seller without any enforceable performance standards. From a social perspective, the risk of loss is most appropriately borne by the party best able to prevent its occurrence....Rarely would the buyer be in a better position than the manufacturer-seller to evaluate the performance characteristics of a machine.... Especially where an inexperienced buyer is concerned, the sellers performance representations are absolutely necessary to allow the buyer to make an intelligent choice among the competitive options available. A sellers attempt, through the use of a disclaimer, to prevent the buyer from reasonably relying on such representations calls into question the commercial reasonableness of the agreement and may well be substantively unconscionable.”135 Cal.App.3d 473, 491-92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). Just as in the FMC case, it is unreasonable to assume that I would buy a high end watch from a purportedly reputable company without any enforceable performance standards. I have a document from a reputable Cartier authorized dealer saying that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. I did not receive from Authentic Watches what I paid them for — which was a new, authentic Cartier Roadster watch. Moreover, there is ample other authority across the country which would support unconscionability in this instance. It is time for Authentic Watches to step up and refund my full $6,275 purchase price. I am happy to provide whatever other documentation or information that you need from me.On a final note, I consent to the text of this note being publicly posted on the Revdex.com Website. However, I ask that my last name and address not be posted with the complaint.Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
[redacted]
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.)
We will be happy to address the client's concerns: #1 - The client cites that it's a "movement issue" and should be covered. However, the warranty is clear; movement maintenance is not covered. The client claims it shouldn't require a movement maintenance, however, we are unable to consider the client's claims and give them a higher regard than that of the actual manufacturer (unless he is a certified watchmaker, CW21 or higher, currently employed by TAG Heuer). In accordance with the actual report of the actual, qualified, and authorized service center, the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service. - Reality: We can't tell the authorized service center that they are wrong, because our customer says so. #2 - Assuming that the assertion that the client's other watches have never required a maintenance service is true, it has no bearing on what this timepiece requires. He may have not impacted his other timepieces as he has this one; they may have not undergone the same situations as this one has. The other timepieces can be quartz, which require maintenance far less often, etc. - Reality: We can't tell the authorized service center "the client's other watches haven't needed an overhaul, so you're wrong; this one doesn't need an overhaul either." #3 - Yes, the client is fabricating his story completely when he asserts someone told him they are the owner. We invite anyone to call us at (805) 823-8888 and ask for the owner; there isn't one. #4 - Revdex.com's rating is not inaccurate, dishonest, nor complicit. Yes, we do indeed have about 60 complaints, but as outlined in our previous response, those complaints are out of 80,000 orders in that period of time, leaving us with a 99.93% positive, an A+ by any standards. While we strive to make every client happy, we are not able to simply hand out free services or products when a client has a grievance. A minuscule minority of individuals do not understand that warranties have terms, and are very upset to hear that their issue is not covered. While we wish we could please every single one of our clients, we realize that some individuals will not be pleased and will post complaints. #5 - The warranty is not "Criminal". It is a standard issue warranty. All warranties have terms; this is a universal practice. To address the alleged criminality of our standard warranty of merchantability, we are happy to inform the client that said terms outlined in our warranty of merchantability are in full compliance with the laws regulating such as outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code of the United States (UCC § 2-316 et. seq.) We are sorry, however, we are unable to service this client's timepiece under warranty. Thank you.
We are sorry to hear the client is upset. However, the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic. If you tell the store you're going to that you purchased the timepiece online, they will not be pleased to hear that they lost a...
multi-thousand dollar sale to an online competitor, and will not help you.As the entire complaint is predicated on the incorrect assumption that the timepiece is not authentic, we can give no gravity to the consumer protection law cited by the client, as it would not be applicable, given that the timepiece sold was indeed authentic.. The client assumes it's not authentic, and that assumption is incorrect. Contrary to the client's claim, she has not submitted any documentation from an authorized dealer's letterhead citing that the model she received, with the serial number she received, is not authentic. The client is free to ship the timepiece directly to Cartier for verification of authenticity, or can simply go to any other authorized Cartier dealer, say they just got this watch as a gift, and ask them to size it. As the client has cited laws she feels pertain to her grievance, we would like to point out that one of the attached documents she has submitted is the RMA form. The bottom paragraph stipulates that the client will agree to and abide by our policies, and she has indeed signed said document. Our policies outline that there is a 10% restocking fee on any item over $5,000. (The policies are clear, and are posted on our website, which the client is obligated to agree to prior to purchase.) Having agreed to said policies, the client is limited in remedy she may seek pursuant to UCC § 2-719. To summarize, the timepiece this client received is 100% authentic. There are several options the client has to prove this, all of which she summarily dismisses (ship it to Cartier, go to any other authorized dealer, etc.) The client wishes to return the item for a full refund, which cannot be done in accordance with our policies. If the timepiece arrives back to us brand new, with all tags attached, then the client will be refunded less a 10% restocking fee, in accordance with our policies. Alternatively, the client may take the timepiece to any other authorized dealer, or ship it to Cartier, and she will easily be able to have the timepiece authenticated (as it is an authentic timepiece.) Thank you.
This client purchased his timepiece on 10/13/14, and he did indeed return it approximately 2 months later with an issue. The issue was that he impacted the timepiece, causing a screw inside the movement to come loose and obstruct the rotor. Although this is not covered under warranty, we had it...
quickly serviced as a one time courtesy.He sent the timepiece back one year and seven months after purchase, citing it was gaining 5 minutes per day. Upon evaluation, it was determined that the timepiece requires a movement maintenance service, which is not covered under warranty, and the client was forwarded an estimate. Movement maintenance services are not covered under warranty, as outlined in our policies, as well as on our warranty card. It is not customary to dissect the "Movement Maintenance", as the causes for why it is necessary can vary. However, in this client's case, given his litany of responses and demands, as well as his repeated prevarication regarding merchantability of the timepiece, we will be happy to provide the cause for the movement maintenance service requirement:The timepiece has been impacted (yet again).The timepiece has been subjected to an impact, causing damage to the hairspring, necessitating a movement maintenance service to rectify.With regards to the client's demands, we have copy/pasted a portion of his email:"I'd like to receive a merchantable watch that functions as intended or a refund in the amount of $500 million - approximately $1280 of which would be for the watch, and the remainder for time wasted."We cannot repair the timepiece free of charge every time the client damages the timepiece, as our warranties also clearly outline that damages are not covered under warranty. We cannot issue this client a refund, as he has worn the timepiece in excess of one year, and has damaged the timepiece. Our policies clearly outline that a timepiece cannot be returned once worn. Finally, we cannot refund the client $500 Million as he has previously demanded, as we cannot see any reason why the client would be entitled to $500 million for damaging his timepiece. The timepiece has been returned to the client with no services rendered due to his refusal to remit payment for the services required. Thank you.
Complaint: 10854413
I am rejecting this response because:A couple of weeks? Read your emails. I requested that the watch be returned on September 17. It is now October 13 and I have still not been notified that it is being returned. A couple of weeks -- right. It is utterly absurd that it should take so long to return my watch once I told them not to repair it. I know of NO business that would take three plus weeks to return an item. My exact words in the email of September 17 were, "I would like the repair shop to perform the warranty repair without the
overhaul. If that is not possible, then return the watch to me
immediately." The only threats came when I waited two week before inquiring and was told it would be another week.You tell me. At what point does it become unreasonable to request that something be returned immediately, unprocessed. Two week? Four weeks? Six months? A year? At some point, it becomes stolen property. These people seem to think that it is completely arbitrary and is acceptable for them to return the watch when ever they feel like it.Time is up. I want my watch returned, and I want it return NOW. If they need to make a phone call to Istanbul and tell them to ship it back directly to me, then do it.
Warmest regards,
W[redacted]
This client placed an order on our website for a discontinued item. We immediately contacted the client to apologize, and informed him the item was discontinued and could not be obtained.We offered the client alternative, similar models, and offered additional discounts. He did not want any...
other item, and the client's order was cancelled accordingly. We would be happy to accede to the clients demands to fulfill an order for this discontinued item, however, given the fact that the item is discontinued and no longer attainable, we are unable to do so. This isn't a "decision" we have made; we simply are no longer able to obtain this item because it has been discontinued.The client responded with a litany of emails demanding we fulfill our contractual obligations to supply an item. We have no such contractual obligations. We pointed out to the client that he agreed to our policies which clearly articulate this. The client responded with:"We will continue our conversation through Revdex.com. Your decision to cancel a confirmed order after charging my credit card is a clear breach of contractual agreement to meet your delivery obligation. "Here is a link to our policies:http://www.authenticwatches.com/info.htmlHere is the applicable clause, verbatim:"AuthenticWatches.com reserves the right to refuse service or cancel any order at it's sole discretion. "The system does not allow a client to checkout without agreeing to our policies. The client agreed to our policies on Fri Oct 16, 2015 at precisely 19:11:34 PDT. We have the client's IP address and electronic capture of agreement on record.Here is the link to the item the client purchased:http://www.authenticwatches.com/breitling-navitimer-a2332212-b635-435x...⇄ are sorry, however, there is no further action which can be taken. This order has been cancelled, and the client has not been charged. Thank you.
This client purchased an IWC watch. As quoted in his own complaint, the item description says:"- Mahagony Gift Box & PDF Copy of Manual"The client contends this to be misleading. We do not see this to be misleading; it is a very clear and concise description of what will come with the timepiece....
No where in the description was there any mention of the timepiece coming with the original manufacturer box and manual. No where was there any indication that the foregoing description was for any additional or excess items. The description clearly posted which box the watch will come with.The reason this particular timepiece did not come with a manufacturer box and manual (most do, and are described as such on individual item descriptions) is that watches are shipped separately from boxes and manuals. When watches come from the manufacturer, they come as shipped from the factory, in a clear, hard plastic box (referred to as a "coffin" in the industry.) From time to time, shipments are lost or damaged. In this case, this watch was part of a series that had a shipment of boxes lost. The insurance claim was paid, and the price of the watch was further lowered because of the missing manufacturer box.The client also contends that the watch is missing the "Authenticity Card". There is no such thing as an "Authenticity Card". It simply does not exist. The only way to check authenticity of a timepiece is to have it inspected by a local authorized dealer. The client is more than welcome to take the timepiece to a local authorized dealer for authentication, or to ship it directly to IWC for authentication:
IWC
Richemont Technical Center
[redacted] Trinity Boulevard, Suite **
Fort Worth, TX 76155
The client also contends that the timepieces "dial" "fell off". The client broke the crown of the timepiece. The fact that the client does not have a card (which is non-existent), nor a manufacturer box (which was not advertised), has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that he broke his crown. The crown was not broken by the mahogany gift box, nor was it broken due to omission of a card. It was broken by exerting excess force, either by hand, or by traumatic impact.Whereas AuthenticWatches.com does not have the original manufacturer box for this timepiece; nor was it advertised to come with the manufacturer's box; nor was the price paid for the item inclusive of the box; AuthenticWatches.com cannot send this customer a manufacturer box or manual.Whereas the "Authenticity Card" the client is requesting is a non-existent entity; AuthenticWatches.com cannot send the client an item which does not exist.We are not able to issue any refund, for any amount, on a timepiece which has been worn. We apologize for any perceived inconvenience the client has endured, however, AuthenticWatches.com did indeed ship the watch purchased, exactly as advertised, and cannot offer any concessions nor compensation for the client's grievances. Thank you.
7/23/2015
Complaint
On April 8, 2015 I sent a watch into Authenticwatches.com for a routing annual cleaning along w/ my request for:- Sonar Cleaning- Review of minor time loss- Missing Illuminating MarkersThis company promises and average 1 month turnaround service, however it was not until June 25, 2015 that I heard...
from them with an email asking for "$1,135. Please remit payment for this amount via personal check or money order"The essentially blamed the delay on the manufacturer / dealer and stated that the watch basically needed a complete overhaul ("new dial, new hands, new crown, and a complete movement servicing").I asked for options and they told me I can either move forward w/ service or have the watch returned as they received it. I chose to have the watch sent back as I had sent it.The watch arrived w/ a broken bracelet w/ missing links and pins as well as a missing external dial marker.Upon contacting Authenticwatches immediately upon receiving my watch on July 9, 2015 I contacted Authenticwatches with my findings.I was immediately transferred to their GM, [redacted] G (did not get last name), who yelled at me and told me "this is how you sent us the watch! we returned it exactly how you sent it! I don't know what to tell you and you'll speak to no one else because I'm the GM!"Needless to say, [redacted] did not own his companies mishap, did not want to discuss and essentially insinuated that I am lying and cheating him...I've already contacted Oris (manufacturer) who claims authenticwatches is not a licensed dealer (which authenticwatches claims to be w/ certificate of authenticity I was initially provided)I am now stuck w/ a $4,000 watch that is broken and in order to wear I must spend a minimum of $400 just for the bracelet, let alone missing indicator on face of watch.
Desired Resolution
I would like the watch repaired with the pieces that were absolutely not an issue when sent to Authenticwatches.com:- Bracelet / Band- Indicator on Face (external)of watchI would also like this to be properly logged as a negative mark against this business for any consumer to see in an effort to...
make them aware before purchasing from Authenticwatches.comI'm perfectly fine w/ the missing internal illuminator and the slight loss in time (which I can happily manually update as I please).
Consumer Business Dialog
This client did indeed purchase a timepiece. He wore the timepiece for two weeks, and then contacted us to inform us that the timepiece had ceased to function. Although we certainly understand the client's frustrations and desire for a new timepiece, we cannot exchange the timepiece for the...
client once it has been used or worn. This would be the exact same scenario had he purchased it directly from Cartier. Once a timepiece is worn, it falls under the warranty, not return policy, and must be serviced under warranty. We are sorry, however, we can neither exchange, nor refund, this client's timepiece. It is currently undergoing warranty service, and will be returned to the client once service has been completed.
All information stated in our previous response is accurate. We cannot issue refunds on used timepieces, and will not be able to issue the client a refund within 7 days. The timepiece is being serviced under warranty, in accordance with the terms the client agreed to upon checkout. The time-line being claimed is completely untrue. He signed and dated his RMA form on 8/4/2015, meaning he sent it on or after that date. The package arrived on 8/13/2015. Today is 9/30/2015. In his rebuttal, he claims "it has nearly been 90 days now". It has actually been precisely 47 days. That is nowhere near the 90 days the client claims.Threats of legal action do not alleviate the client of his contractual obligations to agree with our policies, and have no effect on the course of action we will take.Our warranty of merchantability is pretty standard, and is in full compliance with the law (UCC § 2-316). Furthermore, our system will not allow for checkout until a client has agreed to our policies, The client electronically agreed to said policies on July 15th, 2015 at precisely 8:04:01 pm PST. Finally, he physically signed the RMA form agreeing to our policies, and dated his signature to be on 8/4/2015. The fact that he has agreed to our policies, both electronically, and via wet signature, clearly indicate acceptance of said terms, precluding him from being able to successfully pursue any legal action due to his limited remedies as contractually agreed upon (UCC § 2-719).We will return this client's timepiece once warranty servicing has been complete. Thank you.
This client has requested a manufacturer warranty card. Neither we, nor any other online retailer, provide a manufacturer warranty card with any timepiece. Every page of our website has a link to our warranty policies, clearly outlining this universal practice implemented by all sellers, worldwide....
What we and every other online watch vendor in the world offer is our own warranty of merchantability. The client agreed to this upon checkout 2 years ago. We are sorry, however, we will not be able to provide this client a manufacturer warranty.
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.
We are sorry to hear that this client is so upset. We have looked into this, and have spoken to the client, however, we haven't been able to effectively communicate a few basic facts to this client. Here are the facts of this case:This client ordered the following timepiece: Breitling...
A27363A3/B823-140AThe client was shipped the same timepiece: Breitling A27363A3/B823-140AThe client believes that the bezel on his timepiece should be greener than it is. He further asserts that "our" photograph is misleading.This timepiece has been manufactured exactly this way by the manufacturer. The representative picture is the manufacturer's depiction of the timepiece. Therefore, we have shown the client the manufacturer's picture and we have sent him the manufacturer's timepiece of the item which was pictured. The client contends that it's not as green as he would like it to be. We do not have any control over which hue of green Breitling has chosen to manufacture that timepiece. We have no control over which hue of green Breitling chose to illustrate in their stock photo.This client contends that there is some form of malfeasance or misrepresentation on our part, because he feels the picture shows the bezel to be greener than it actually is. The client further contends that we must "admit" to some sort of wrongdoing. There has been no wrongdoing on our part whatsoever to which we can admit.The client cites "I would have even considered keeping the watch if they admitted the error / accepted responsibility". We have not made any errors for which we can accept responsibility. The picture is directly from the manufacturer, and the timepiece he ordered is as manufactured by Breitling. We do not have the ability, directive, nor desire to alter a manufacturer's timepiece. There is no "greener" version that could have been purchased at any authorized dealer. This client is faulting our company for having sold him exactly what he ordered. A brighter green hued version simply doesn't exist.We are not certain what the client's ultimate request is, as we do indeed offer a full refund (less shipping). If he is dissatisfied, he can return the item for a full refund less shipping. To illustrate this scenario in an analogy to simplify what's taken place:A person goes to Best Buy and buys a Go Pro Hero 5 Black camera. He goes home, opens the package, and realizes it's a very dark charcoal color, and not pure black. He then posts negative reviews about Best Buy calling the store a scam. He creates posts on his social media page starting with "SCAM ALERT", citing that he was falsely misled by Best Buy, because it clearly says "Hero 5 Black", yet it isn't PURE black in color. Best Buy can't admit some sort of fault, because the picture on the box is from Go Pro, and the item inside is from Go Pro. The store offers him a full refund, but the client is demanding that he is compensated for his time, and for his gas money for driving to the store round trip. The store cannot compensate for transportation. The client therefore posts negative reviews and Revdex.com complaints claiming that Best Buy is a SCAM, having perpetuated some sort of fraud.The example in this analogy makes an equal amount of sense as the grievance this client has outlined. We do our best to take care of our clients, however, this client is demanding "admission" of fault and "compensation". We have done nothing wrong, having shipped him exactly what he ordered. If he is "willing" to keep it if only he could get an "admission", then we are struggling to understand where there is a problem. I cannot imagine keeping a multi-thousand dollar item I am unhappy with, so long as a seller that did nothing wrong admits that he/she did something wrong.We have a very easy return policy. If the client is dissatisfied with the item, he is welcome to return it for a full refund less shipping provided it has not been worn or used and the tags have not been removed or cut. We are unable to offer any further "compensation". We apologize for any inconvenience.
We have a 30 day return policy, which is among the most lenient return policies in the business (most companies offer 7 day or 14 day policies). If an item is returned after the expiration of the returns period, we are not able to issue a full refund. Our policies indicate that the item must be...
received back within 30 days of shipment. The client feels that our policies should be in line with the IRS; they are not. We are www.AuthenticWatches.com, and neither our policies, practices, nor nature of entity are similar to the IRS. We do not have a "postmarked by" return policy.This client's returned items arrived after the 30 day returns period had expired. Accordingly, the client cannot be issued a full refund, and was issued a refund less 10%. We are not able to refund this client any additional sum. Thank you.
Complaint: 10563284
I am rejecting this response because:I am writing in reference to the above referenced complaint. I received your letter, which contained the response of Authentic Watches.Com, to my complaint today. I am immediately responding to ask that you keep this complaint open.As I noted in my March 30, 2015 letter to you with attachments, I purchased an alleged Cartier Roadster XL W6206019 from AuthenticWatches.com on or about March 19, 2015 for the price of $6,275.00. On the AuthenticWatches.com website, the company represented that it was an authentic, BRAND NEW" Cartier Roadster watch. After receipt of the watch, my husband went into the C.D. Peacock store in Oak Brook, Illinois to have a link taken out of the watch. The Watchmaker at C.D. Peacock, [redacted], indicated to my husband that he did not believe the watch was authentic. As a result, the watchmaker would not modify or alter the watch in any way.On March 30, 2015, I called Authentic Watches to obtain a return authorization number and to confirm that, when I returned the watch, I would receive the full purchase price credited to my credit card. The company indicated to me that, unless I had something in writing from C.. Peacock saying that the watch was not authentic, they would not refund the full purchase price of the watch. Although I disagreed, I immediately went to C.. Peacock and obtained the documentation requested from C.D. Peacock. The Watchmaker, [redacted], confirmed that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective because of the big gap between the case and the bezel at 1012. I included a C.D. Peacock document setting forth Mr. [redacted] views that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective and his business card with my complaint to the Revdex.com and the materials that I submitted in connection with my watch return to Authentic Watches.com.According to the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) confirmation, Authentic Watches received the watch back from me on April, 2015, the same day as the Revdex.coms letter was sent to me containing Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint. Accordingly, Authentic Watches could not have reviewed the documentation that I submitted with the watch, nor examined the watch prior to responding to the Revdex.com complaint.In any event, I have reviewed Authentic Watches’ response to my complaint and concerns (which I received from the Revdex.com today), and it is not valid for a variety of reasons. First, the response indicates that I have not submitted documentation from an authorized dealer saying the watch that I received is not authentic. That is false. I did submit a statement from C.D. Peacock, which is an authorized Cartier dealer, stating that the watch was either not authentic or it was defective. Accordingly, Authentic Watches’ statement is not accurate.Second, Authentic Watches states that I can ship the watch to Cartier to get it authenticated. That claim is not true. I had only a limited number of days, per Authentic Watchess return policies, to return the watch to Authentic Watches or I would risk full forfeiture of my $6,275.00 payment. As a result, I had no meaningful choice but to ship the alleged Cartier Roadster back to Authentic Watches as soon as possible. Authentic Watches, who is now in possession of the alleged Cartier Roadster and has been since April, 2015 according to the attached USPS record of receipt, should be required to ship the watch that they sent to me to Cartier to get it authenticated. If that occurs and Cartier confirms it is authentic, I am happy to forfeit the 10% restocking” fee. In the alternative, Authentic Watches.com claims that they receive designer watches from Authorized Dealers. If Authentic Watches received the watch that they sold to me from an authorized dealer, they should be more than willing to share with me copies of the transaction documents from that transaction to prove to me that the watch is authentic and that it came from an authorized dealer. They have not done so. Authentic Watches.com cannot have it both ways. They must prove the watch is authentic (since they represent it is authentic on their website and such a claim is actually in their name). That is what I paid for. They should not be allowed to shift the burden to me, the consumer, to prove that the watch is a fake (which I did do through C.D. Peacock) but then insist that I need to send back the watch very quickly to insure that I get at least 90% of my purchase price. Nevertheless, even under their unconscionable standard, I have already proven that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. It is not what I paid for. The burden should now be on Authentic Watches to show to the Revdex.com (and a court if necessary) that the watch is authentic. This is their business, and they should have no problem doing so if the watch is actually authentic.Third, Authentic Watches’ response to the Revdex.com claims that my contractual remedies purportedly are limited to 90% of the purchase price of the watch pursuant to UCC 2-719. That is also incorrect. I do not agree that this purported limitation applies in this situation because the watch is not authentic, according to a professional watchmaker at an authorizedCartier dealer. Nevertheless, even if you assume for the purposes of this complaint that Authentic Watches’ argument under the UCC should be entertained, there is no contractual limitation where such a limitation is unconscionable. UCC 2-7193), or Californias equivalent (Wests Ann. Cal. Com. Code 2719(3)), provides that “[c]onsequential damages may be limited or excluded unless the limitation or exclusion is unconscionable.” Here, such a limitation is unconscionable. As courts have found, “[u]nconscionability has generally been recognized to include an absence of a meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party.” See, e.g., Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co., 350 F.2d 445, 449 (D.C. Cir. 1965). Here, Authentic Watches drafted their policies and the contract at issue. The parties do not have equal bargaining power, and there was no negotiation over the contract terms.This situation is strikingly similar to the AM Produce Co. v. FMC Corp. case in which the California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment involving an unconscionable and unenforceable disclaimer of warranty:“Since a products performance forms the fundamental basis for a sales contract, it is patently unreasonable to assume that a buyer would purchase a standardized mass produced product from an industry seller without any enforceable performance standards. From a social perspective, the risk of loss is most appropriately borne by the party best able to prevent its occurrence....Rarely would the buyer be in a better position than the manufacturer-seller to evaluate the performance characteristics of a machine.... Especially where an inexperienced buyer is concerned, the sellers performance representations are absolutely necessary to allow the buyer to make an intelligent choice among the competitive options available. A sellers attempt, through the use of a disclaimer, to prevent the buyer from reasonably relying on such representations calls into question the commercial reasonableness of the agreement and may well be substantively unconscionable.”135 Cal.App.3d 473, 491-92 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). Just as in the FMC case, it is unreasonable to assume that I would buy a high end watch from a purportedly reputable company without any enforceable performance standards. I have a document from a reputable Cartier authorized dealer saying that the watch is not authentic or it is defective. I did not receive from Authentic Watches what I paid them for — which was a new, authentic Cartier Roadster watch. Moreover, there is ample other authority across the country which would support unconscionability in this instance. It is time for Authentic Watches to step up and refund my full $6,275 purchase price. I am happy to provide whatever other documentation or information that you need from me.On a final note, I consent to the text of this note being publicly posted on the Revdex.com Website. However, I ask that my last name and address not be posted with the complaint.Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
[redacted]
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.)