Consumer Advocacy and Protection: A Case Study of Supplier Practices in Watch Repairs

Introduction

This article examines a consumer case involving an international watch brand repairer in Australia and highlights issues of consumer advocacy and protection. The case presents a scenario where a supplier, offers a repair quotation, but then makes offers that financially benefit the company, potentially at the expense of the consumer. This analysis explores the company's approach, relevant consumer laws, and the broader implications for consumer rights in Australia.

Background

In April 2024, Andrew X, a customer of the manufacturer, sent his $1000+  watch to the company for a band repair. The watch, which was barely 10 years old, had a similar band failure to a previous watch (over 20 years old), for which a 50% discount was offered on a new watch due to the unavailability of parts. On 11 April 2024,  the company provided a quote indicating that the band was not repairable, and a new band would be provided for $79. Andrew X accepted this quotation and proceeded with the repair.

Summary of Events

1. On 11 April 2024, the company quoted $79 to replace the watch band.

2. On 21 May 2024, after querying a delay, company advised that parts were delayed and offered a 50% discount on a new watch. Which Andrew declined.

3. On 27 August 2024, Andrew escalated the issue, noting a lack of estimated time of arrival for the parts and suspecting the watch model had been discontinued.

4. Andrew’s communication highlighted potential breaches of good customer service and consumer laws, questioning the companies' intentions.

5. The company responded with apologies and reassurances but continued to delay, ultimately stating that the band would arrive in mid-September.

Issues Identified

The primary issue identified in this case is the apparent shift from a quoted repair cost to offers that financially benefit the company. Initially quoted $79 for a band replacement, the consumer was later encouraged to purchase a new watch at a significantly higher cost. The delays and lack of transparency regarding parts availability suggest an attempt to convert a repair into a more profitable sale.

Consumer Law Implications

Under Australian Consumer Law (ACL), suppliers are required to act transparently, and consumers are protected against misleading or deceptive conduct. The ACL stipulates that a supplier must deliver on quotes provided unless otherwise agreed. Failure to meet a repair obligation without a valid explanation, followed by attempts to upsell, may constitute a breach of the ACL, specifically sections relating to misleading and deceptive conduct (ACL Section 18).

Moreover, the lack of response and shifting offers may contravene obligations for suppliers to provide goods and services that match descriptions and quotes provided to the consumer (ACL Section 54 - Guarantee as to Acceptable Quality). The situation also raises concerns about the ethics of repeatedly offering a discount on new products instead of honoring repair commitments, which could be seen as coercive selling practices.

Recommendations for Consumers

1. Document All Communications

Keep records of all interactions with suppliers, including quotes, responses, and any changes in offers.

2. Know Your Rights

Familiarise yourself with the Australian Consumer Law, particularly sections on misleading conduct and guarantees on service quality.

3. Escalate When Necessary

If a supplier fails to honor a quotation or significantly changes the terms, escalate the matter to consumer protection agencies such as the ACCC.

4. Seek Independent Quotes

If delays occur, consider sourcing quotes from independent repairers who may have access to parts not available through the original supplier.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of vigilance and assertiveness in consumer transactions. Suppliers must be held accountable for honoring quotations and not exploiting delays to encourage higher-value sales. Consumer protection laws exist to safeguard against such practices, and it is crucial for consumers to be informed and proactive in seeking remedies when their rights are compromised.

Additional Relevant Data

Upon receiving the repair invoice, it was noted that the quoted band replacement cost was $79. However, the invoice indicated that the recommended retail price (RRP) of the band was $429. This discrepancy raises further questions about the transparency of the company in their dealings with customers. The substantial difference between the quoted price and the RRP suggests that the quoted repair cost may not have accurately reflected the true value of the part, potentially misleading the consumer about the nature of the repair and availability of parts.

Note. There is a disclaimer about no obligation to comply with the RRP on the invoice.