Issue with watch company

ali_hire

Good afternoon all.

In September 2012 my wife bought me a wife a new watch for my birthday. Unfortunately I can't add a link as I'm a new user but it's a Stauer Graves '33 wristwatch.

Around a year later it stopped working. I assumed the battery had died and took it to a local jeweller for a replacement. They informed me that the watch powered itself via movement and that the mechanism must had failed. I’d need to go back to the manufacturer.

I contacted Stauer who replaced the watch under warranty (it was very close to being over its year’s guarantee). Rather than fixing the watch they replaced it with brand new one. Obviously I was very happy with this.

Around a year later (again, almost exactly a year) it failed again although this time one of the hands had become detached and would just spin around under the momentum of gravity.

I emailed Stauer and they replaced it again. All fine.

Another year on (a few weeks ago) one of the hands (this time the small one which shows which day of the month it is) has become detached and is just falling around inside the watch face.

I’ve emailed Stauer and they are refusing to do anything about it stating that “the year’s warranty is active from the date of original purchase”.

I’ve pointed out to them that they’ve previously replaced this watch on two occasions due to faults and that surely any repair or replacement should carry some warranty too (as they were brand new replacements I don’t see why they don’t have a year’s guarantee – they certainly would if they were sold to a new customer).

They haven’t replied to my last email or a chaser email I sent to them last week which also asked for a copy of their complaints procedure. I have copies of every email I’ve ever sent them and I have the original receipt.

I plan to write to them to advise that if they do not respond and do not take positive action to rectify this then I will take it further. But who do I complain to assuming they don’t respond/won’t change their stance?

Also, is there anything I can quote (from a legislative point of view) which backs up my case here? I feel that they have set a precedent by replacing the watch on two prior occasions and it also implies that they’re acknowledging a problem with their build quality.

Any help greatly appreciated.

InsideInsurance

It is an automatic mechanic watch (aka self winding).

Where did she buy it from? I can only see people in the USA selling them.

Under UK law then your rights are with the seller and not the manufacturer and predominately from the date of purchase and so this isnt extended by interim repairs.

If its a UK based retailer then under SOGA the item basically has to provide a "reasonable life" but inevitably its subjective what such a thing is. Ultimately the quality of the item is taken into consideration, on the basis I cannot spot any other high street brand doing an automatic with this number of complications until you're over twice the RRP and triple the online prices could be factored into what sort of quality you should expect from it.

That said, if the only problem is that a hand has fallen off then this is a very simple and thus cheap repair for any watch company to do for you.

stork_2

In this case, it looks like the OP's rights are with the manufacturer. They no longer have the watch which was originally supplied by the retailer, nor does the replacement appear to have been supplied by the manufacturer as the retailer's agent. It was done under the manufacturer's warranty.

The warranty terms in relation to the watch may refer to it running from the original date of purchase. However, the OP's statutory rights in relation to the most recent supply would come under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (not SoGA).

As the OP is not having much luck with this model of watch, it may be that rejection would be in order (under the SoGA, the doctrine of 'acceptance' doesn't apply, so unless the OP has affirmed the contract in the face of the alleged breach by indicating the intention to keep it even though it appears to be faulty, rejection would still be a possiblity). The measure of damages would probably be less than a full refund, given that the OP has had some use from the watch.

Bantex_2

stork wrote: »

In this case, it looks like the OP's rights are with the manufacturer. They no longer have the watch which was originally supplied by the retailer, nor does the replacement appear to have been supplied by the manufacturer as the retailer's agent. It was done under the manufacturer's warranty.

The warranty terms in relation to the watch may refer to it running from the original date of purchase. However, the OP's statutory rights in relation to the most recent supply would come under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (not SoGA).

As the OP is not having much luck with this model of watch, it may be that rejection would be in order (under the SoGA, the doctrine of 'acceptance' doesn't apply, so unless the OP has affirmed the contract in the face of the alleged breach by indicating the intention to keep it even though it appears to be faulty, rejection would still be a possiblity). The measure of damages would probably be less than a full refund, given that the OP has had some use from the watch.

It appears the may have bought fro a US seller. In which case SoGA would not apply.

InsideInsurance

stork wrote: »

In this case, it looks like the OP's rights are with the manufacturer. They no longer have the watch which was originally supplied by the retailer, nor does the replacement appear to have been supplied by the manufacturer as the retailer's agent. It was done under the manufacturer's warranty.

The warranty terms in relation to the watch may refer to it running from the original date of purchase. However, the OP's statutory rights in relation to the most recent supply would come under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (not SoGA).

As the OP is not having much luck with this model of watch, it may be that rejection would be in order (under the SoGA, the doctrine of 'acceptance' doesn't apply, so unless the OP has affirmed the contract in the face of the alleged breach by indicating the intention to keep it even though it appears to be faulty, rejection would still be a possiblity). The measure of damages would probably be less than a full refund, given that the OP has had some use from the watch.

The fact that the manufacturer has chosen to replace the watch under the warranty rather than repair it should not harm their rights against the retailer (assuming the retailer is UK based). It has in no way prejudiced the retailers position and they would be hard pressed to argue the manufacturer isnt competent to dealing with faults with their own products.

SOGSA, to my understanding, requires there to have been a contract for services. What consideration has the OP given to the manufacturer for a contract to have been formed between them? The current fault also seems unrelated to the repair that they did even if it was a similar issue to a prior problem but then that links back to the original supply of goods.

Hintza

The watch can be bought for $129 new so we are not talking about a very expensive watch.

Where and from whom was it bought?

ali_hire

Thanks for the answers so far guys.

It was purchased from Stauer's UK website. It is still on sale now at £299 although I am aware that it can be purchased overseas for less.

I appreciate that you can spend a considerable amount more on a watch but I feel that a watch at this price should certainly last considerably longer than a year.

Hintza

ali_hire wrote: »

It is still on sale now at £299 although I am aware that it can be purchased overseas for less.

£149


http://www.mirrorreaderoffers.co.uk/item-ee-stauerwristwatch/stauer-graves-33-wristwatch/

InsideInsurance

ali_hire wrote: »

Thanks for the answers so far guys.

It was purchased from Stauer's UK website. It is still on sale now at £299 although I am aware that it can be purchased overseas for less.

I appreciate that you can spend a considerable amount more on a watch but I feel that a watch at this price should certainly last considerably longer than a year.

You can buy it in the UK for £129, indeed it was the first UK page I found for it.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a low cost watch, my favourite at the moment was £140, but mechanical watches are a very complex piece of engineering and that's without a lot of additional dials. To manufacture such a complex movement for something that is routinely sold for under £150 means you are cutting many corners to get it to that price point and you are not making a long lasting durable item. My watch of a similar price point is quartz which is a very simple movement and a reliable one can be bought for a few pounds. Ironically it'll always be more accurate than any £50k Rolex or Patek Philippe etc

The UK website is run by Interactive Agency Ltd and if you bought it from them then you need to get in contact with them and raise the issue that the time is faulty and you want them to deal with it under the sales of goods act

ali_hire

Yes. Not that it makes much difference to this situation, but the price on Stauer's own website is £299.

I can't post a link as I'm a new user.

InsideInsurance

ali_hire wrote: »

Yes. Not that it makes much difference to this situation, but the price on Stauer's own website is £299

If you read the small print its not their own site, its stauer.co.uk but its owned/ operated by Interactive Agency Ltd

Its a common trick of these sorts of products. You set up a "manufacturer" website and put on some a high price which you never really intend to sell at and also say you wont find it in any shops

You then run a load of "offers" with the likes of the Mirror, as the link above, saying it normally sells at £299 but our special offer to our readers is £159 or the £129 I found on Premier Offers. The first website's purpose is to validate the RRP claim.

I dont want to turn this thread into something bashing your watch, as I say, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with sub £200 watches but unfortunately this isnt the price point to be looking at for a reliable automatic watch let alone one with multiple complications.

The way to deal with it is to go back to the website and complain mentioning your sales of goods act rights. Alternatively take it to a watch shop and ask them to quote to reattach the hand, it shouldnt be expensive.