faulty watch

jobless

hey all,

I bought an expensive watch (well expensive for me) last year and after 4-5 months i noticed it was losing a number of minutes of a couple of days.

I brought it back to the jewellers and they sent it off to be looked at by the manufacturer. I got it back a few weeks later.

Now, 3-4 months on it seems to be losing more minutes but maybe over a week/week and a half this time.

I want to bring it back but dont want to have to wait around for another few weeks while they send it off again....

What options do i have here?. Can i demand a refund?

foggy_lad

jobless wrote: »

hey all,

I bought an expensive watch (well expensive for me) last year and after 4-5 months i noticed it was losing a number of minutes of a couple of days.

I brought it back to the jewellers and they sent it off to be looked at by the manufacturer. I got it back a few weeks later.

Now, 3-4 months on it seems to be losing more minutes but maybe over a week/week and a half this time.

I want to bring it back but dont want to have to wait around for another few weeks while they send it off again....

What options do i have here?. Can i demand a refund?

You can ASK for a refund but they do not have to give you that, they will claim that they have to have it examined to confirm the fault then can offer to replace it or refund or fix it again but you can refuse a 2nd repair!

Oryx

I presume its a mechanical rather than a quartz watch? Mechanical watches will lose time as you describe, quartz ones shouldnt.

jobless

Oryx wrote: »

I presume its a mechanical rather than a quartz watch? Mechanical watches will lose time as you describe, quartz ones shouldnt.

its a quartz one i just checked.... even if it was a mechanical one i wouldnt have expected this to happen within a year of purchase....

at what point am i entitled to a refund or replacement?

coylemj

Could you quote the make and model?

jobless

what does the make model matter?.....

Oryx

jobless wrote: »

what does the make model matter?.....

Gives an idea of the quality, and whether it is a troublesome brand, or model, and you may also get additional help with how to resolve your issue with it.

Oryx

jobless wrote: »

its a quartz one i just checked.... even if it was a mechanical one i wouldnt have expected this to happen within a year of purchase....

at what point am i entitled to a refund or replacement?

Thats decided between you and the retailer. He makes an offer refund/repair/replace which you are free to accept or reject. If you cannot agree, you are free to take it to the small claims court.

jobless

ok its a tissot PRS200.... the reason i bought it was because i thought they were a very good brand

coylemj

I can see it for sale for £410 on www.thewatchhut.co.uk .......

http://www.thewatchhut.co.uk/Tissot-Gents-PRS-200-Chronograph-Bracelet-Watch-T067.417.11.051.00.html

so I assume you paid more here. It is a good brand, I owned one once myself, an automatic I bought in the 1970s.

Bring it back to the jeweller, tell them you want it fixed for good this time around or you want your money back.

jobless

Oryx wrote: »

Thats decided between you and the retailer. He makes an offer refund/repair/replace which you are free to accept or reject. If you cannot agree, you are free to take it to the small claims court.

so technically he can keep sending it back for repair and i'm out a watch for weeks on end?

coylemj

jobless wrote: »

so technically he can keep sending it back for repair and i'm out a watch for weeks on end?

I don't think the law places a limit for all cases because for something like a car, it might take a dealer several attempts to fix a mysterious problem.

In your case I'd imagine a judge (in a small claims court scenario) would probably reckon that if the problem wasn't fixed after two attempts then you'd be entitled to a refund.

Give them one more shot at it, I think it's too early to go legal.

Oryx

jobless wrote: »

so technically he can keep sending it back for repair and i'm out a watch for weeks on end?

No, you can refuse to have it repaired again, and ask for one of the other two options: refund/replace. If they refuse, its small claims.

coylemj

Oryx wrote: »

No, you can refuse to have it repaired again, and ask for one of the other two options: refund/replace. If they refuse, its small claims.

Good luck trying to invoke that claim (the supplier only gets one shot at fixing a fault) if you ever have a problem with a new car!

P. Breathnach

We are not talking about a car here. We are talking about a watch, and a problem which is fundamental to the purpose of watches - failing to record time accurately. I'd say that if OP bases his the position on the fact that he was without the watch for several weeks while a repair was attempted, and that the repair was unsatisfactory, the court would back him in refusing a second repair. [They might take a different view if the repair had been successful and subsequently the bracelet broke.]

dudara

coylemj wrote: »

Good luck trying to invoke that claim (the supplier only gets one shot at fixing a fault) if you ever have a problem with a new car!

Under Consumer Law, you are entitled to expect a permanent repair to an issue. If the repair isn't permanent, then you can consider rejecting future repairs, and inside going for replacement/refund.

coylemj

dudara wrote: »

Under Consumer Law, you are entitled to expect a permanent repair to an issue. If the repair isn't permanent, then you can consider rejecting future repairs, and inside going for replacement/refund.

You can 'consider' it all you like. Getting a car dealer to agree to giving you your money back or a different brand new car after one failed attempt to fix a fault would be a different matter.

I'm making the point that the consumer has no absolute right to reject a product outright if the supplier has failed to repair it on the first attempt. If he did, there'd be an awful lot more 'almost new' cars on dealers' lots.

pleasant Co.

Why are you talking about cars at all..this thread is about a watch. Unlike a watch cars / vehicles have a host of different regulations, most of which I haven't a notion about, but there's certainly a lot more to them than a watch

coylemj

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Why are you talking about cars at all..this thread is about a watch. Unlike a watch cars / vehicles have a host of different regulations, most of which I haven't a notion about, but there's certainly a lot more to them than a watch

We're talking about a consumer's rights in the case of a fault with a new purchase in which case we're dealing with the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 and it applies equally to watches and cars.

Someone please quote me legislation or a court case which holds that a supplier only has one shot at repairing an item sold with a manufacturing fault after which he is obliged to offer the consumer a replacement or refund.

P. Breathnach

coylemj wrote: »

We're talking about a consumer's rights in the case of a fault with a new purchase in which case we're dealing with the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 and it applies equally to watches and cars.

Someone please quote me legislation or a court case which holds that a supplier only has one shot at repairing an item sold with a manufacturing fault after which he is obliged to offer the consumer a replacement or refund.

I'm prepared to work on it just after you cite authorities for your assertions, which dissent from the generally-agreed viewpoint.

Oryx

coylemj wrote: »

We're talking about a consumer's rights in the case of a fault with a new purchase in which case we're dealing with the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act 1980 and it applies equally to watches and cars.

Someone please quote me legislation or a court case which holds that a supplier only has one shot at repairing an item sold with a manufacturing fault after which he is obliged to offer the consumer a replacement or refund.

I never said they had one shot. It is not written in law how many repair attempts can be made as each situation is different. My point is that the op can accept or reject any remedy offered and if they cannot agree on a remedy then scc is there to obtain a resolution.

JimsAlterEgo

very true, if I found there was a known issue with my product I would only give them 1 attempt then off to SCC if refused with documentation, in some cases if the known issue was not even fixable I would consider asking for immediate refund or replacement (with similar)

jobless

my worry with all of this is that it is only losing time gradually over time, so in this instance i set it against the timeanddate.com and then return a week and a half later to see it is 7 minutes slower.

How do i prove this to the retailer?...

Oryx

jobless wrote: »

my worry with all of this is that it is only losing time gradually over time, so in this instance i set it against the timeanddate.com and then return a week and a half later to see it is 7 minutes slower.

How do i prove this to the retailer?...

Its actually a very unusual fault. Quartz watches aren't like mechanical ones, they don't lose time generally, because the timing comes from the oscillation of the quartz crystal, and I would imagine in such a quality watch there isn't going to be a flaw in the movement (which is the train of wheels that drives the hands). But because the mechanisms have less force than the old style mechanicals, it doesn't take a lot of dust or dirt to stop them completely, or intermittently. Even the seconds hand tipping the glass of the watch can slow or stop a quartz watch.

I'm only mentioning this because the guy you bought it off will find a slow quartz watch unusual.

Are you willing to let him monitor it for a week to see the flaw? It would probably need to be returned for repair subsequently, though. As I mentioned above, you are free to ask for a refund or replacement, but they may not be willing to give it to you, and it is reasonable to allow them to investigate the flaw.

jobless

Oryx wrote: »

Its actually a very unusual fault. Quartz watches aren't like mechanical ones, they don't lose time generally, because the timing comes from the oscillation of the quartz crystal, and I would imagine in such a quality watch there isn't going to be a flaw in the movement (which is the train of wheels that drives the hands). But because the mechanisms have less force than the old style mechanicals, it doesn't take a lot of dust or dirt to stop them completely, or intermittently. Even the seconds hand tipping the glass of the watch can slow or stop a quartz watch.

I'm only mentioning this because the guy you bought it off will find a slow quartz watch unusual.

Are you willing to let him monitor it for a week to see the flaw? It would probably need to be returned for repair subsequently, though. As I mentioned above, you are free to ask for a refund or replacement, but they may not be willing to give it to you, and it is reasonable to allow them to investigate the flaw.

i wouldnt mind them having it for week or so to see if there is a problem but between that and then sending it off to get repaired i would be without it again for 6/7 weeks after already being without it for 4/5 weeks before.... After paying so much i'm not happy about having to do this.
I expected not to have a peep out of this watch for at least five years...

donegal.

my advise would relate to how you approach the seller. Don't go in feeling angry or hard done by, confrontational and shouting about your rights and small claims court. The advise in the previous posts is good, but most of it is worst case scenario.
You want to win him over to your side . It's not his fault the watch is faulty and he will want this resolved as much as you do, after all a happy costumer is a repeat costumer.
the most likely outcome is a replacement watch.

coylemj

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm prepared to work on it just after you cite authorities for your assertions, which dissent from the generally-agreed viewpoint.

My assertion is a negative which is as follows:

There is nothing in legislation or case law which lays down that a supplier has only one shot at repairing a faulty item before the consumer is entitled to decline a second repair and elect for a replacement or refund.

I cannot prove a negative, it's up to you to disprove it.

Relying on the fact that what you say is a 'generally-agreed' viewpoint when there's only a handful of people on this thread is a pretty weak argument for your case.

coylemj

Oryx wrote: »

I never said they had one shot. It is not written in law how many repair attempts can be made as each situation is different.

My point exactly.

Oryx wrote: »

My point is that the op can accept or reject any remedy offered

Can you quote a legal source for that claim?

Oryx

coylemj wrote: »

Can you quote a legal source for that claim?

I would say its covered here specifically:

(a) the buyer deals as consumer and there is a breach of a condition by the seller which, but for this subsection, the buyer would be compelled to treat as a breach of warranty, and

(b) the buyer, promptly upon discovering the breach, makes a request to the seller that he either remedy the breach or replace any goods which are not in conformity with the condition,

then, if the seller refuses to comply with the request or fails to do so within a reasonable time, the buyer is entitled:

(i) to reject the goods and repudiate the contract, or

(ii) to have the defect constituting the breach remedied elsewhere and to maintain an action against the seller for the cost thereby incurred by him.

(3) The onus of proving that the buyer acted with promptness under subsection (2) shall lie on him.

(4) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.

My understanding of the law in its practical use is that three remedies are available, these must be agreed upon between both parties. Neither one is allowed to insist on one remedy to the exclusion of the others.

P. Breathnach

coylemj wrote: »

My assertion is a negative which is as follows:

There is nothing in legislation or case law which lays down that a supplier has only one shot at repairing a faulty item before the consumer is entitled to decline a second repair and elect for a replacement or refund.

I cannot prove a negative, it's up to you to disprove it.

Nonsense. What you claim to be a negative is an implied positive: that the vendor is entitled to multiple opportunities to repair a defective item.

I accept, in relation to your apparent interest in motor vehicles, that a vendor might be entitled to more than one effort to repair a defect in a vehicle (unless there is a defect is so fundamental as to render the vehicle incapable of being satisfactorily repaired). It comes down to reasonableness, something that the courts tend to favour.

Relying on the fact that what you say is a 'generally-agreed' viewpoint when there's only a handful of people on this thread is a pretty weak argument for your case.

Well, a handful outnumbers one!

The NCA advises:

Repair
If you request a repair of a faulty product instead of rejecting it, it should be a permanent repair. If the same fault occurs again, then you should be entitled to a replacement or refund.

[Source: http://www.nca.ie/nca/faulty-goods]
This advice is rooted in an accretion of law going back to the Sale of Goods Act 1893, a body of case-law that I am not sufficiently motivated to research, and European Directives such as Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees.

That directive effectively requires that a repair be permanent, by defining a repair thus:

repair: shall mean, in the event of lack of conformity, bringing consumer goods into conformity with the contract of sale.

jobless

thanks for the advice guys.... (PB for the last link)...

I guess i'm going to try and ask for a replacement and see what they say... i would be frustrated to give it back for another few weeks having forked out so much for it