Pontiac Eleven

Review: Purchased a watch from them over the holidays to surprise my husband. Watch was not automatic so I tried to call to begin the return process. Automated menu from their [redacted] would disconnect you when you dialed "3" for watches. I sent an email and followed the directions to return the watch, in its original packaging, in its original shape within 5 days, via insured U.S. mail. One full day after they received the watch, they emailed a picture of a dismantled watch with a note that that I would not be charged the 20% restocking fee for "tampering" with the watch if I made another purchase through their store. I explained that I am a public school teacher and would not know how to take a watch bracelet apart. I requested my full refund as the watch had been sent, in original condition, in original packaging (bubble wrapped!) with their authorization, within 5 days. Unfortunately, they charged me almost $400. Not sure if the money was for "re-stocking" or alleged "damage," but this is not standard business practice. I am disputing this through my credit card as I have not been able to resolve it with [redacted].Desired Settlement: I would like my 20% refunded. If they would like to charge me the original shipping fee for sending the watch [redacted], I am willing to pay that cost. However, I do not want to be held responsible for alleged "damage" which was not done by me. Nor do I think the company should hold 20% as a means to compel me into doing further business with them.

Business

Response:

The business has responded. Please see below:Buyer purchased watch from our web store for her husband. Buyer after receipt then indicated OVER EMAIL that the bracelet was too small for husband's unusually large wrists and needed to alter the bracelet to extend it. We offered to send hundreds of dollars worth of extra links for free to help buyer out (very generous and liberal practice in the pre-owned watch business). Buyer then changed mind, and said they wanted to return the watch as husband actually wanted a different model. We immediately accepted buyers remorse return (accepting buyer's remorse returns for pre-owned watches is quite a generous policy within the industry, which usually only allows returns for not-as-described items) When buyer returned watch, the bracelet was clearly broken out. We took clear photographs of this alteration upon receipt of the watch. Per our PUBLISHED RETURN POLICY, damaged or altered returns incur a 20% restocking fee. We of course did not want buyer to incur this cost if possible. Although alteration was clearly caused by buyer as it was their intent (as clearly stated over email) to extend the bracelet, we graciously offered to waive the fee if buyer instead of returning altered watch exchanged with the automatic version they said they had actually wanted. There is clear evidence over email of buyer's intent to alter the bracelet, and clear photographic evidence of the alteration that was made, though buyer denies this. What are the chances that a fine watch will disassemble itself in the mail in the exact same way buyer communicated over email that they wanted to do? It is clear that all the mistakes on this transaction were made on the buyer's end - from buying a watch that clearly had a bracelet smaller that what the husband needed, to asking for expensive extra links and then abruptly changing their mind to instead returning when husband actually wanted a different model, to making the costly mistake of actually altering the watch before it was returned. It is also clear in our pattern of behavior throughout this transaction - from accepting a very low offer price, to shipping insured [redacted] Express for free, for offering to send hundreds of dollars worth of expensive watch links fir free to make the existing bracelet fit the intended wearer (good thing we received notice that they were returning the watch before we sent out the links - possibly even more loss on our end if that happened), for accepting a return "no questions asked" for a watch they claimed was purchased as a mistake, for offering to waive fees and eat the costs for a clearly altered return, that we have worked with the buyer at every turn to make their purchase as smooth and hassle-free as possible. Buyer's claims therefore that we are nickel-and-diming him to an exchange are clearly astonishing and cannot be taken seriously by any reasonable person. We are and have always been willing to work with the buyer in spite of the clearly numerous missteps they have made in this transaction - if they want to do an exchange with another model we are willing to waive the costs and damage that they have incurred to the watch and our business. However, if they want to do a straight refund, we will have to charge them our restocking fee that is clearly indicated in our return policy. That said, in case of further issues with the buyer we have retained copies of our email photographic evidence, as well as the altered returned watch in question to submit to the police if necessary.

Review: I purchased an Omega Seamaster watch which was delivered to me on 9/**/15. The description on the website stated that the watch was functioning properly at the time of the listing.

It had stopped repeatedly and I informed the seller via email of that fact on Oct. **. The seller's response was that his watches can sometimes sit on the shelf for months unused waiting to be sold. He said that it may just take some time for all the lubricants to recirculate and that it should return to normal. It did not return to normal.

I emailed the seller again on Oct. ** stating it was still stopping and was told he could not accept a return after almost "3 weeks." Instead he suggested that I return the watch to him to have a $150 service service performed.

I feel that the servicing should be done at the seller's expense because it was not as advertised.Desired Settlement: Stated above.

Business

Response:

The business has responded. Please see below:Buyer purchased a used watch with unknown service history, sold as-is without warranty as clearly stated in our sales and return policy. That said, we offer a 7 day return policy "no questions asked" (very generous return policy, as the industry standard is "3 days, only if not as described") Buyer's initial communication with us was after 2 weeks, way past the return period. Buyer did not communicate with us about any issue before this. We do not know if during this time buyer damaged the watch, or if watch finally needed service (as even perfect mechanical watches require occasional maintenance to function properly). We suggested to the buyer that they let the lubricants circulate (which is good advice), but even at that point the return period had already lapsed and watch was no longer returnable. Again, we clearly advertised that watch as having an unknown service history, with no warranty and sold as-is - we are not responsible for servicing at any point. This is like claiming that if we sell a used car we're responsible for buyer's future oil changes. Buyer factors these costs in before purchasing. Finally, buyer is incorrect in his claim that he send the watch to us for service. We referred him to our watchmaker who services watches well and afforadably, and offered to facilitate. We do not and have never serviced watches.

I was interested in purchasing a watch from this company and had negotiated with a representative for mutually agreeable price. I accepted their offer and I paid them. They even sent me a personal message confirming that my payment had gone through and that my watch was going to be shipped the following day.
However, when that day arrived I received another message saying that there had been some sort of computer error and the watch I had purchased still appeared on the site as being for sale, so someone else bought the watch that I had already purchased. They offered me a similar watch at the lower price that I originally offered, but none of them were in as nice of a condition as the one I had purchased.
I explained to the representative that we had reached an agreement, and it would be more appropriate for him to contact the person who had bought the watch AFTER me and tell them that the computer error made their purchase a mistake (they had already taken my money, after all), but they just refunded my credit card.
Although the representative was always quick to respond to me and did apologize, this is not an acceptable way to do business. This dispute had nothing to do with e-commerce, but with a seller who was unwilling to honor a previous deal.