olivia said:
Despite the positive outcome for you, it is still "advertising one thing and sending something else."
I agree, 100%. As I stated above, I would prefer a "no surprises" transaction every time. I just wanted to point out that it isn't always the consumer who loses in a case of misrepresentation. That's it.
HK -- Of course the "cartel" dealers are going to ask the manufacturer not to supply the watch to a dealer that is going to undersell them. I would do the exact same thing if I was in their position. The manufacturer is the one making the final decision, however. If the manufacturer is willing to acquiesce to that request and lose out on selling a few more watches through another dealer, that's their business choice.
Do I wish it were different? Sure.
This is really no different than Rolex not allowing ADs to sell their watches at a discount. I wish that was different too, but it's the reality of things.
Again, it's not ideal for the consumer, but there are lots of other commercial situations that are similar.
How about DeBeers buying up and warehousing diamonds to keep the supply low and artificially inflate the price of diamonds? I don't think that's ethical either, but that's life in the real world.
I'll save my pennies and buy a gen Steelfish.
