In July 2020, the owner of a Rolex Oyster Perpetual ref. 1003 walked into an authorized Rolex dealer to ask whether it was possible to repair the watch’s Oyster bracelet. A few months before, he had bought these birth-year replica watches UK in the USA. After wearing it for a few months, he noticed that two springs in the riveted expandable Oyster bracelet were malfunctioning.
The representatives at Gassan Diamonds in Amsterdam, the authorized Rolex dealer, told the owner that they could not repair the bracelet themselves but that Rolex probably could. Gassan Diamonds then sent the Oyster Perpetual 1003 to Rolex Switzerland for analysis and a quote for the repair. According to Rolex, however, just repairing or replacing the two failing links was impossible. The repair could only take place in combination with a full service. For the combined repair and complete overhaul, the owner was quoted €1,573.
Since the owner wanted the bracelet repaired, he agreed to the mandatory Rolex revision of the watch. A few months later, in October 2020, he received a message that his watch had returned from Rolex in Switzerland. He went to Gassan Diamonds only to discover that Rolex had not repaired or restored the two links correctly. It required “extreme” force to stretch the bracelet. Unhappy with the repair job, he filed a complaint with Gassan Diamonds’ service department, and the top Rolex fake watches went back to Rolex for inspection and adjustment. Upon return of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual, the owner was still unhappy with the repair job. He reluctantly paid for the repair and took his watch with him.
Afterward, the Rolex owner decided to ask Gassan Diamonds for compensation for the failed repair of his riveted Oyster bracelet. The discussion went back and forth for quite some time, but according to the owner, Gassan refused to give in. This led him to file a lawsuit against the company on November 23rd, 2021. After a few delays, the case went to court on June 10th, 2022.
Interestingly, however, the court wondered if the mandatory overhaul of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch resulted in unfair commercial practices. There was no relation between the repair of the Oyster bracelet and the full servicing of the top replica Rolex watches. The court indicated that it appeared the client had received false information about the necessity of such measures. If this were the case, the agreement between Gassan Diamonds and the buyer would be subject to termination. Gassan Diamonds wasn’t prepared for this debate and asked for some time to prepare a defense.
Following a delay, the case resumed on March 3rd, 2023. Gassan Diamonds claimed to have adhered to strict Rolex guidelines regarding repairs to ensure that Rolex watches keep their value. Additionally, Gassan Diamonds stated that the client agreed to the repair and revision, so he had not been misled. Furthermore, the client had been “free” to take his Rolex watch and bracelet elsewhere for repair.
Interestingly, Gassan Diamonds also brought in an email from Rolex Switzerland stating that repairing the Oyster bracelet was impossible without performing an overhaul of the Oyster Perpetual watch. “Given the condition of the movement, the watch can’t be returned with just a repair of the bracelet,” the (translated) message read. The court thought that this information from Rolex was incorrect anyway as it would be perfectly fine just to repair the bracelet. But instead, Gassan Diamonds had decided to follow Rolex’s guidelines.
The defense reasoned that Rolex is a prestigious brand and wants to prevent “inferior products” from ending up in the market and spare parts ending up in the market. Aside from whether the overhaul would prevent the above from occurring, the court decided there was still no reason to have Rolex service the 1:1 Rolex fake watches before repairing the Oyster bracelet. According to the court, it was instead a case of self-interest for Rolex to perform a revision on the Oyster Perpetual ref. 1003.
The judge believed Gassan Diamonds had misled the owner of the watch by telling him it needed a complete overhaul. According to (local) law, this then qualified as a case of unfair commercial practices. Gassan Diamonds insisted on an unnecessary revision of the Rolex watch to have the bracelet repaired. Since the owner of the Rolex went to Gassan Diamonds specifically to have the bracelet repaired, he wouldn’t have agreed to the complete servicing of the watch if the store hadn’t let him know it was mandatory. The fact that he agreed to have this performed on his watch and have the bracelet repaired didn’t convince the judge otherwise.
Also, according to the case description, Gassan Diamonds’ reasoning that the client had been free to go elsewhere for his repair did not hold. Gassan Diamonds informed the Rolex owner about the supposed necessity of a service to be performed by Rolex Switzerland to ensure the watch kept its value. According to the judge, this explanation from Gassan Diamonds weakened the client’s position because there did not seem to be another alternative.
The judge concluded that the agreement between the Rolex dealer and the Rolex owner was based on unfair commercial practices. The court decided that the agreement shall be terminated and that Gassan Diamonds must reimburse the owner of the Rolex Oyster Perpetual the €1,573 that he paid. The court believed that reimbursing the client for only the cost of the service and not the bracelet repair as well would not be a sufficient penalty for unfair commercial practices. Gassan Diamonds also needs to pay €338.80 for extrajudicial costs and €826.71 to the owner of the perfect fake Rolex watches for his incurred legal costs.
This is an interesting case, and the outcome makes me wonder if Rolex and its retailer network will continue to require a complete service/revision if there’s only a need for a partial repair, like the bracelet. You could also wonder why Gassan Diamonds went to these lengths for an invoice of €1,573. The store could have easily (partially) compensated the client after the debate. Once you do that, however, you create precedence for other cases. And last but not least, the judge agreed with Gassan Diamonds that the repair was done correctly, which is what the Rolex owner disputed.