The Breitling Watch Source Forums

Warranty obligations are one thing; policy is another. I know of manufacturers who have clear and limited warranty terms (which are quite important for legal and accounting purposes), but also have liberal policies on standing behind products, regardless of age.

If you bought from grey or pre-owned, you may have troubles, Breitling wants to make sure you bought from authorized AD.

This discussion has taken place a million times on the Rolex Forum I belong too because many RSC workers are under the impression that once the watch is sold in the secondary market there is NO warranty.

That’s a fair distinction. Perhaps Breitling’s “policy” is not to enforce that term of the contract, but if that’s the case, why include it all? Breitling doesn’t need to mandate a particular condition precedent to coverage in order to have clear and specific warranty terms. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of another warranty I have seen that includes that kind of requirement.

The warranty terms limit what the company is on the hook for, legally, and are part of the contract of sale. The obligation lasts for the warranty period. Policy can be changed at the drop of a hat, to instantly cut the extra expense of a liberal policy, should it become necessary.

I get that, Wrangler, but that doesn't explain Breitling's choice to include that requirement as a term of the warranty in the first place. What purpose does it serve, given Breitling's practice of recording all AD sales?

Whose policy????

Breitling doesn't have that policy, some Breitling distributors do (and some don't).

I slept through most of the legal posts, but that bit woke me up.

OK, I stand corrected. I thought Breitling's ADs routinely reported sales to Breitling. We always hear about receiving hats from BUSA or BUK. Even if they don't, though, it doesn't change my basic premise, which is, as long as Breitling can verify the watch was sold by an AD and is within the warranty period, requiring the card is unnecessary. Obviously if they can't verify it, and the owner can't verify it, that changes matters. The card then becomes a failsafe.

BUSA and BUK are Breitling subsidiaries, but that is not the model that applies in the vast majority of Breitling markets where the distributor is an independent 3rd party.

Gray-market dealers get product from ADs. Breitling may have access to records showing sales to ADs, but not all sales to consumers. Perhaps they don't wish to be bothered tracking each item through to the sale to the consumer. This gives them an easy starting point from which a kinder policy may apply. As to motivation and attitude, your guess is as good as mine.

Well, OK, in light of Roff's corrections, this makes sense. You've convinced me.

I think the thread's been done to death, but just to say I think BUSA is much better at recording sales than BUK. Hence BUSA send out hats, and BUK don't. (hint, hint)

_________________
Driver8

Site Moderator