In 2009, the client purchased a pre-owned luxury watch and used it without issue until 2022, when the bracelet broke and the watch was sent for professional repair. The repairer reported that key components were non-genuine or heavily modified, leading the manufacturer to refuse service. The retailer initially offered a refund and reimbursement of repair costs, later proposing either rescission or restoration. The client selected a higher-value replacement from a shortlist, but the retailer withdrew the offer citing price and stock constraints after repeated escalation.
Counsel was required to assess available consumer remedies in light of the watch’s age and potential non-genuine components. This included evaluating claims under the Consumer Rights Act, Misrepresentation Act, and Forgery and Counterfeiting Act, despite limited documentation. Counsel also examined the contractual status of the retailer’s replacement offer, which was subject to management approval, and framed practical next steps to protect the client’s position while pursuing a commercial resolution.
Counsel advised that limitation periods and evidential gaps weakened statutory claims, and the retailer’s replacement offer was not contractually binding. Two practical options were proposed: secure a time-limited commitment to restore the watch or accept rescission with full refund and repair reimbursement. This approach preserved leverage, avoided litigation, and enabled the client to act strategically while reserving regulatory options.
Call us – Mon-Fri 8:30am – 6:30pm
+44 (0) 20 3034 0077
By submitting this form, I accept this website’s Privacy Policy