A couple of weeks ago I sold a Rolex Explorer 2 on here to Tris (trisdg). Watch was received in good condition, Tris was happy with it, and the deal went great.
Today Tris went to Rolex St. James to fix an issue with the clasp, and was notified by Rolex the watch he brought in to get fixed (my old Explorer 2) is registered as stolen Since somewhere last year.
Tris sent me a message asking for the history of the watch and the previous owner. I bought the watch from a trusted member from a Dutch watchforum, who in turn bought it at a watch convention in Germany.
The problem is, neither of is really know what to expect or to do. Rolex isn't letting go of the watch at the moment and started an investigation into us and the watch. Now, I've got nothing to hide and can prove I also bought the watch in good faith for a normal (not too good to be true) price just a week before selling it.
Has anyone ever experienced something similar? Any idea of the consequences? How about accountability?
Both Tris and I would really appreciate any advice. I want to help Tris as much as I can to get the watch he was so happy with back to him.
I am not 100% sure and you would need to check but I believe as far as the law stands it wasnt yours to sell so you would need to give him his money back for starters. Terrible situation to be in and I hope you can get it resolved, a lesson for us all I guess.
Rolex should be contacting the person that raised the entry on the stolen register and liaising with the relevant police in order to establish rightful ownership (which may now be an insurance company if it was stolen and then an insurance claim was made). They should also verify if the watch is actually correct to be classified as stolen.
If the case is the watch is stolen then surely in the first instance you need to refund Tris as it would appear you've sold a watch that wasn't yours to sell (unintentionally of course).
Next you contact the person that sold you the watch and inform them of what has happened and pursue a refund of your monies if you can (perhaps getting some evidence from Rolex / police that the watch was in fact stolen property) - this will go down the chain until someone unfortunately gets stung.
Thats really unfortunate.
Hasnt happened to me but the law would probably say you need to pay the buyer back his money.
You can inturn demand money back from the Dutch guy who sold you the watch.
You need to repay Tris as the watch was not yours to sell. You then need to try and recover the money from the person who sold it to you, as it wasn't theirs to sell. And so on.
It's a nasty situation to be in and it shows how this could happen to anyone innocently buying second hand Rolex. I guess it proves the importance of getting a recent service receipt!
A question: Has Rolex provided any documentation showing that the watch is stolen, such as a receipt to Tris? Copies of this would be important for everyone along the line of previous owners to prove that they should be refunded by the person who sold it to them.
Yep, I think this I right unfortunately. You have in all intents and purposes sold stolen goods. You need to try and get your money back from the dutch seller and so on.Originally Posted by bobdog
Bad situation
Depends how recent though doesn't it - all it would indemnify is the period leading up to the receipt, not the period after it when you're buying the watch.
How much I'd like to help Tris, I simply can't refund him. I purchased the watch in good faith, which I can prove, and sold it to Tris, who bought it in good faith, as we both can prove. I'm not sure either of us is responsible in this situation.
I'm not trying to get out of this, but repaying Tris would mean I'd have to quit my study ... EDIT: lots of anger because of this statement. Let me clear this up. I get paid 8 euro's an hour. How long do you think it will take me to recover the 3000 euro. No worries, Tris and I are in good terms and will reach a solution. For now, we just have to wait and see what Rolex and the police say about the matter, and what happens next. This also involves the people further down the chain, the insurance company, the original owner, and so forth. We're in the dark now, let's clear things up first.
I'm actually doing everything iN my power to help Tris and the police, but this one is really out of my reasonable power.
Last edited by JTrapman; 13th March 2015 at 10:27.
That's a terrible situation to be in. No lesson for me here though - there's always some risk in buying second hand watches; bad things sometimes just happen!
The only thing to do is repay the buyer and claim your money from the person that sold you the watch.
As a side note: in such instances, if the seller refuses to refund your money, is the buyer eligible for cover from his insurance?
Agreed. One has to make a reasoned judgement, I guess.
Does anyone know for certain, legally speaking? Just curious, if I sold it, likely as not the money would have been spent.
It's all good and well saying pay it back but if the money's gone it can't happen. Presumably the police would have to get involved and try and get a prosecution, which wouldn't happen if the item was proved to be bought in good faith.
Last edited by chrisparker; 12th March 2015 at 15:40.
Although you acted in good faith, you are now responsible (both morally and legally to the best of my knowledge) for repaying Tris. There is no way round it.
He could sue you for what he paid you and he would undoubtedly win.
If you can't repay in one go then perhaps repaying in instalments over time would be acceptable?
You can of course claim back what you are owed from the person who sold you the watch (and yes, I realise this is easier said than done!). Is there an equivalent to England's County Court in the Netherlands?
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 15:36.
Ignorance of the watch's status / acting in good faith are no defence of your legal position with regard to title / liability to the "purchaser."
Though you may not have known that you did not have title to sell it, the fact may be that you did not. As such, you could not pass title to the "purchaser" and he has a valid legal claim against you for the full amount of monies paid to you for same.
This is a most unfortunate and not uncommon example of why private sales can be fraught with risks. You can end up "holding the baby" and bearing the loss, as well as ending up without a watch to show for it!
In this position, there are a few steps I would go through, none of which will happen quickly.
Ask for the circumstances of the claimed loss, police investigation etc. If it was a domestic theft, for example, what proof was there that it was not a case of fraud or collusion? I am peripherally involved with about 800 high-end watch insurance claims every year, acting as advisor / salvage expert. Many of these are in fact fraudulent claims, where the owner has reported his watch stolen, claimed on the insurance and then sold it, for example. You need to push for proof that this cannot be what happened in this instance.
If it is a black and white case ( a recorded robbery from a shop, for example ), you have few places to turn. Unfortunately you then need to refund the purchaser and it cannot be acceptable to say that you don't have the money right now. He may be in exactly the same position financially and it is sad but true that you have a moral and certainly legal liability to him.
I do wonder if the savings made from private purchases are so great as to make these risks worthwhile. I say this not to annoy at a time when you least need it, but because private "forum" trades are celebrated by many as safe when they really may not be.
Good will and knowing the seller do not protect you from all risks.
I wish you luck --- you appear not to have had it so far.
Haywood Milton
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th March 2015 at 15:51.
I don't really understand what right Rolex UK have to confiscate private property, surely they are only required to inform the Police ?
I cant see any evidence supporting that accusation...
As much as I want to sympathise with the OP, Tony is right here.
I'm pretty sure that if you have something in your hand you know to be stolen then giving it to anyone other than the police is illegal...
"ignorance" to the fact it was stolen doesn't absolve you of responsibility for selling stolen goods though, and in reality I can't see how you can't prove either way if you were party to knowingly receiving stolen goods. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not implying that you knowingly did this - I just don't think from a legal point of view you have a leg to stand on with Tris. Likewise though neither does the seller that sold you the watch.
Have you discussed this situation with Tris and tried to find an agreeable way forward for both of you - perhaps either re-payment by instalment or re-payment once you have received your refund from the Dutch dealer (assuming you can get one that is)?
Have to agree. OP needs to do the right thing and refund the money even if it is in instalments.
Tris needs to get hard evidence from Rolex and / or the police and present it to the OP.
OP needs to pursue the seller to reclaim his money.
Nothing else is acceptable.
It's a bad situation alright, but non of it is anything to do with the buyer........he needs a refund ASAP, and the seller then needs to do whatever he can to recover his own loss...
Nothing in life is without risk, but really - how often has this situation occurred amongst the membership here? I dont really see it is any more - or less - risky than buying second hand from a pawn shop or a non-Rolex AD... or even a Rolex AD if they aren't required to report each and every watch that passes their counter to Rolex - would be interested to know if they are?
They don't have any such right in general[1] but where they know (as far as their register tells them) that something is stolen property to which the person who brought in the item can have no legitimate title, then that changes things somewhat. In that case they are, in effect, acting as a kind of agent for the legitimate owner of the watch.
Footnote:-
1: The smashing or seizing fakes meme is fantasy (at least in the UK) as far as I have been able to ascertain.
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 15:57.
Except that if you buy from a legitimate business then they should be willing to refund you without complaint as soon as they have proof that the watch was stolen.
To be fair Tony we don't know the whole story here, and it might be a case of a quick flip for watch that don't meet the OPs hopes once he'd received it - on the other hand you could be entirely correct.
But at the moment this would seem to be a secondary issue to the main event of ensuring Tris is refunded or the OP provides a suitable alternate watch .... we can get the tar and feathers out later
Yes, agreed on all counts. The primary issue has to be a refund for the buyer.To be fair Tony we don't know the whole story here, and it might be a case of a quick flip for watch that don't meet the OPs hopes once he'd received it - on the other hand you could be entirely correct.
But at the moment this would seem to be a secondary issue to the main event of ensuring Tris is refunded or the OP provides a suitable alternate watch .... we can get the tar and feathers out later
I've sold 2 rolex's to Blowers.....on both occassions they checked out the serial numbers.......I suspect any proper SH dealer or pawn shop would do the same...
Things are rather difficult here, since TS lives in The Netherlands, so his actions are protected by dutch law. In The Netherlands you are allowed to sell stolen goods if you can prove you did not know they were stolen (i.e. you bought them for a "reasonable price"). In that case the new owner is now the legal owner. However, since the watch has moved to the UK, the new owner falls under UK law, which might have different rules concerning handling stolen goods. So legally (according to dutch law), the TS does not have to refund anything and the buyer might be screwed. How this is solved between the 2 of them is up to them.
True, but someone asked how it worked, legally speaking.
Most businesses would give an immediate refund under these circumstances, and if they wouldn't then they are generally far easier to pursue legally than an individual is. I can tell you that we very often have to console people after they have made a private purchase and been caught out.
YES, of course "forum fellowship" may reduce the risk, but how much ? That SillyPseudonym256 ( no reference to person living or dead intended ) has traded insults with the mob here for years does not mean that he'll be ready to had back a pile of readies when it hits the fan.
How many members will not find out that the watch on their wrist is stolen until at some point, years later, it crosses the manufacturer's path, or someone like me does a check on the Safergems Watch Register and it has a hit ?
No stolen list is perfect, not even the manufacturers, so complete comfort is available nowhere. Many a watch has been checked against a stolen register without a match, only for it to be flagged as stolen later ( most commonly a late report may indicate a fraudulent report, but you're already into a pile of strife by this stage ).
How many people are innocently wearing a stolen Rolex now, since the UK Lost / Stolen list was closed to general access ? Cartier, the same ? This innocence does not save them from losing the watch in years to come if the watch has a valid claim against it and the match is spotted.
The statute of limitations does not apply to matters of title. If it isn't yours today ( whether you realise it or not ), it isn't yours 20 years later, either.
Haywood Milton
If Dutch law says the seller bought in good faith and was the legal owner when he sold it, then the watch was NOT stolen when it was sold. You could also argue that, in Dutch legal terms, Rolex have now stolen it from it's rightful owner! Was it reported stolen in the UK?
Sounds like a horrible mess - What are Rolex proposing to do with the watch, as a matter of interest?
M
JTrapman, would it not perhaps be possible for you to contact your seller and have him refund directly to Tris (cutting out one hop)? Hopefully both of you can get this sorted.
I feel terribly sorry for Tris after reading his other thread and his excitement of having the lume done & freshening up the bezel etc etc. But both guys are victims here.
Blimey. That is very surprising!
Thanks for that useful bit of info.
Indeed. It really is a horrible mess with such major incompatibilities in law between near national neighbours.
I am very surprised that mere good faith can apparently legitimise title to stolen goods in the Netherlands.
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 16:13.
Being "allowed" to sell stolen goods if you can prove you did not know ( or should have known ) that they were stolen is essentially the same as in the UK, in so far as you will not be prosecuted. However, it is a separate thing to say that title to such property, which was not the "seller's," passes to the "purchaser." In the UK this is very clearly not the case and it would be good to clarify the situation in The Netherlands.
It would be perverse for the legitimate title holder not to have a claim on his stolen property simply because it had passed through enough hands for it to reach a seller who could claim he didn't realise it was so. The legal position in the UK clearly recognises this.
Are you able to confirm the position on title with certainty, for The Netherlands ?
Haywood Milton
Last edited by Haywood_Milton; 12th March 2015 at 16:14.
I want to make one thing clear: I am not going to stand for some internet lynching. I am helping Tris sort everything out, and am asking for advice here, as agreed upon by Tris and me. I am handling everything as good as possible.
Tony, your accusation is absolutely ridiculous. The watch wasn't to my liking, so I sold it on, simple as that. How many watches have you sold on? Exactly.
I think Tris and I will be able to sort everything out. I bought the watch from a member of a dutch watch forum, and can make all messages public if need be. I can show I bought it in good faith. The previous owner bought it at a watch convention, so in worst case scenario the owner before me is the one to held accountable under dutch law.
I wouldn't expect any less when you were selling to them - but I was wondering if they are required to check any Rolex that comes in for, say, a bracelet adjustment against the Rolex register? I also wonder if non-Rolex traders can access the register - I don't think the public can now?
Point taken regarding the flipping of the watch, so I withdraw my previous comment and apologise for it. My personal position of the manner in which the refund should handled remains unchanged, however. This has nothing to do with a lynching, but everything to do with protecting the buyer and maintaining the inherent safety and integrity of SC.
I truly can't believe I'm in the middle of all this.
I went to Rolex this morning with the Explorer 2 to have a tiny little tweak done to the clasp to make it click tighter. The man there was very polite and professional as you'd expect and went away to do the work. Shortly after, he came back to ask me where and when I purchased the watch, and then informed me that it was flagged up as being on their stolen register.
I cannot describe the shock I felt, but my jaw hit the floor and I could hardly speak for about a minute!
He then told me that Rolex would have to keep hold of it whilst they get in touch with the various authorities, in this case probably the German Police as it was stolen in Hamburg, and asked me to send any details to Kings Hill Lost and Stolen Department, and gave me a receipt for the watch.
I left St James and immediately got on touch with Jereon to let him know what happened and took a photo there and then in Green Park of the receipt, which I sent in the message.
I got back and wrote a letter to Kings Hill and included copies of all our communication prior to the sale, and also the few messages that we'd had subsequent.
Right now I still feel like crap, and waiting for Rolex to get in touch with any details, as well as the German Police, but realise this could take up to a few weeks.
So I have no watch and no money and Jeroen's telling me there's no way he can refund me the money. So I feel totally shafted. EDIT have just opened a PM from Jeroen after I had posted this stating he's getting in touch with his seller to try and work out a refund.
So I'm not sure what to do, to be honest.
I want to wait and hear what Rolex have to say, but I truly can't afford to lose this kind of money, so any further help on this thread would be massively appreciated.
Cheers,
Tris
Last edited by trisdg; 12th March 2015 at 16:27.
As Blowers are not Rolex Authorised Dealers, it would be interesting to know what register they are checking. They may now be using the not-for-profit Safergems Watch Register which is getting live information from all UK police forces ( see many references on the L&F forum here ), or the Art Loss Register's more commercial database which does not enjoy the same links.
Since the Rolex UK list became inaccessible to most, it has diminished in stature and is significantly less well known about than it was even five years ago. Fewer watches are reaching it than should and as a result the faith we all had in it is less and less deserved......which is why the UK trade bodies, through Safergems, saw fit to initiate their own.
Haywood Milton
From a civil litigation perspective this is an interesting question.
There is clearly a contract between the parties.
Its clear that the English court could have jurisdiction to hear this claim as the contract for the sale of goods was for performance (ie delivery of the watch) in England under the Special Jurisdiction rules of the Brussels Regulation (Art 7.1).
Its a bit less clear what the applicable or governing law of the contract would be (assuming the parties have no express agreement on the point) It could be Dutch law under Article 4.1 a of Rome 1 or possibly it could be English law if the OP is viewed as a dealer (I don't have sufficient details but looks a bit unlikely) as Article 6 of Rome 1 applies.
Last edited by Josh B; 12th March 2015 at 16:24.
Tris, I really feel for you. Thanks for including a picture of the receipt they gave you. It's good to know you at least have that paperwork.
I'd suggest sending the letter to Kings Hill and then giving them a call to confirm what will happen next. If they can confirm that the watch is definitely stolen then the next step is for JTrapman to refund you, no matter how hard for him this may be.
It's then up to him to recover what he is owed from the person who sold him the watch, but that is not your problem.
Damn this is a terrible situation. I wonder why the stolen register is not available to the public. I wish we could go on a database and check whether a watch was stolen, I cant see why they wont wanna show this?
The watch can be traced back to a watch fair in Germany, and it was stolen in Germany, so that adds up. I guess ultimately the Explorer is going back to the title owner in Germany, unless they've claimed on their insurance for it.
The messy bit is then the money side of things, and so it's down to who's prepared to take the hit...
Morally yes, but legally? Who knows...
Yes, Art. 3:86 BW
Here's a Google translate, but it basically says if you have acquired a good in good faith, you are legally the owner.
The original owner can claim ownership within 3 years of theft, unless the (private) buyer has bought the good from a store, or the good is described as money or securities.
https://translate.google.nl/translat...l86&edit-text=
Last edited by Skyfire; 12th March 2015 at 16:49.
Was any reason ever given for the withdrawal of Rolex's own register from public access? I cant see the logic in it...
And by "interesting" you mean "bloody expensive"..?
;)
Definitely legally too, in the UK. (I am not a lawyer but I am 100% certain I am not wrong on this point).
However, according to Skyfire at #28, selling on a stolen item in good faith legitimises subsequent legal title to the item under Netherlands law. That is surprising, to say the least, and it could do with confirmation or reference.
If correct, this begs the question of which jurisdiction's laws govern the transaction. I have no clue about that. See what Josh said.
** edit **
Ah, see Skyfire's #46 for a reference to the Dutch law.
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 16:39. Reason: Added comment about ref to Netherlands law
Indeed. If you'd had a Rolex stolen and reported it, you'd be pretty narked to find that Rolex had received it, advised the hander-in that it was stolen, and given it back never to be seen again.
Posting Permissions
