The trust that mr. Wang placed in the watch repair shop of his rivals brought his old watch, the omega, to repair for decades, without expecting the long road of repair。
At noon in april 2009, a 70-year-old mr. Wang's family member came in haste to the committee to claim that an omega watch had been sent to a maintenance department on 17 september 2008, with an agreed date of “telephone notice”. More than a month later, in the absence of a “telephone call”, wang himself came to the department of maintenance to enquire about the maintenance progress. The receptionist came down and ran back, stating that the consumer's watch had not been found, and informed the factory that the glass had been delivered. Consumers ' psychology was skeptical and then turned to the shanghai watch industry association. With the help of the association, consumers receive “telephone notices” around a week, which are available. After that, the consumer confirmed that the form was normal and paid $800, which was recovered on 6 november. No insurance was granted on 28 march 2009 and was again sent for failure of the jumping calendar, as the maintenance project was not the same as the previous maintenance project, the maintenance cost was quoted at $420, while the consumer considered the maintenance costs to be excessive, the jumping calendar was damaged by the failure of the repair master to install the previous maintenance, which resulted in the inflexibility of the jumping schedule, which should be repaired free of charge, and, in the event of unsuccessful negotiations between the parties, resorted to the lo bay board。
After listening to mr. Wang's account, the staff of the committee made a call from the department of maintenance, which coincided with the fact that members of the department went out for dinner. During this period, mr. Wang again claimed that the “omega” was purchased in the 1960s in the amount of rmb 500 and that it had been accompanied by more than 40 years, and that, as a result of the age, the watch had broken down and the clock shops in shanghai had been repaired for about two years. However, it was sent to the department of maintenance in 2002 and the problem arose six years later, considering the department to be highly skilled and credible, and to be in a state of great despair this time, even though the family was far away from the department。
The head of the maintenance department, who gave high priority to the matter once again by dialling the telephone number of the maintenance department, was investigated carefully by the head of the maintenance department and was negligent during the inspection by the maintenance manager, not because of a failure in the calendar, but because of a screwdriver spring failure and maintenance fee of $20, which was accepted by the consumer。
Although the complaint was dealt with, the matter had to be reconsidered, with $420 and $20, which represented a total difference of $400, which might be nothing for a boss, but a considerable expense for a normal family. The board once again reminded the vendor that it was important to strengthen internal management, as a result of an oversight by the maintenance manager that the consumer risked losing $400. Increased technical training to improve the quality of staff's operations must be done with caution and caution in making decisions on fees and must not open prices at will until the failure has been resolved. At the same time, consumers themselves need to increase their awareness of protection, and commodity maintenance encounters are suspicious, requiring the vendor to identify the failure and decide whether the fee is reasonable。
