^^^ Yes and yes.
This situation absolutely sucks. If the watch is stolen but the guy it was stolen from has been paid out by insurance. Do the insurance company then take it back?
I bet there are loads of watches out there like this. I wonder if it has been 10 years do the insurance company still get it back?
^^^ Yes and yes.
A bit harsh. What if the funds from the sale have already been spent? Not everybody has cash coming out of their ears.Originally Posted by Jim W
You are right, I shouldn't have said that.
I should have said - I suspect he made a profit on the deal.
And I suspect he did.
Unless I've missed it in the thread I can't see where he says he didn't?
If the insurance paid up it belongs to them... presumably upon receipt of the item they will flog it to recover their outlay.
They can then wait until a subsequent owner has it again confiscated by Rolex and start all over again ;)
I bet this has happened!
The OP appears to have brought this up in public to try to get help from the forum and the chap who's had his watch confiscated appears to be allowing him the time to sort it out. OP says he doesn't have the money and this has only just happened but he's trying to sort it out. If he really is in a situation where by Dutch law he was the legal owner then he could be approaching this in a completely different way so please can we all (I'm clearly not referring to everyone) cut him a little slack while he sees what he can do to reclaim the money from the person from whom he bought it.
+1
I was always told 'When you play with big boys toys you have to put up with big boys consequences', I know it doesnt help and I genuinely feel sorry for the pair of them but thats life I'me afraid!
A far larger difference is that you crap on ONE farmer.
There are TWO victims here.
They both should be reimbursed etc.
Most holders of a privately owned luxury watch can theoretically get stung when their precious is checked against a register. The problem is the lack of a public register.
No register system is perfect so there will always be unfortunate situations but a secret register is taking the mickey.
The sole benefactor is the AD.
Totally unfair indeed.
Looks like a bloody nightmare all round really.
We can all pontificate in what should be done, but if the OP has already committed his received funds to another purchase then it will be difficult to reimburse the sale - as has been mentioned previously upline.
In an ideal world, yes the purchasing chain needs to be followed and recourse taken at each point with each participant in the transactional chain doing the decent thing and refunding their respective buyers ... but do you think that would really happen?? Just for a minute put yourself in that very situation. Imagine you've flipped a watch a year or so ago then yesterday you get a demand from your buyer for a refund because it had turned out to be stolen the year before you bought it ...
Hope it gets sorted out, but I can't help but think that it will end in tears...
G
100% in agreement.
Taking the chain as a whole, maybe or maybe not. But what happens in the chain as a whole does not change the nature of the individual links. Each seller is independently responsible to his buyer, no matter what happens anywhere else in the chain.
As long as the evidence provided to me was convincing then yes, I would be refunding my buyer. If I couldn't pay up in whole immediately I'd be working out what I could pay in instalments.
Simultaneously I'd be looking into what I could claim back from whoever sold it to me. The chances of being refunded by whoever sold it to me might not be high but a) I'd try, and b) success or failure would not affect the reality of refunding my buyer, either immediately or in instalments.
I recognise that this puts the seller in this case in a particularly unfair and difficult position but that's life. :-(
I feel sorry for Tris, he appears to be in a pickle:
A) the seller is in a different country, which to my mind means the seller is basically in the clear. All this talk of intra-EU law seems a bit pointless as I imagine the cost of Tris retaining a lawyer to pursue this across national boundaries will probably exceed the cost of the watch, and also be prohibitive in absolute terms (especially if Tris can't afford to lose the price he paid for the watch. And, for that matter, if the seller can't afford to refund Tris, how can he hope to afford legal help in getting a refund from the person who sold him the watch?). If I was in Tris' position, I'd be asking why the seller can't get a loan to pay him back if the seller doesn't have the cash readily available. All I'd be bothered about is getting my money back.
B) if Tris can't get a refund straight from the seller (for whatever reason), then I don't see him getting a refund at all. The likelihood of a refund coming from anyone further upstream seems fanciful.
I'd spend my time investigating how else I can get my money back. Household insurance, credit card etc. I wouldn't pin any hope on a refund from the seller, no matter how well intentioned he is. Failing that, fingers crossed the Rolex investigation turns out in Tris' favour and he gets the watch back.
Dutch law is irrelevant in this transaction between OP and tris as the OP sold on a UK site.
Dutch law only pertains in the transaction between OP and whoever he purchased the watch from ... if that sake took place on the Netherlands.
This whole crap situation is nothing new.
When the register was closed I wrote about this.
I am Dutch and in the Netherlands have experienced the bike-chain thing THREE times and only one time did I not loose out.
The closed register thing seems to me a HUGE unjust money maker.
It does not reflect well on brands who operate one.
Unfortunate situation for both parties. I totally agree with the above though. Give the OP some time to sort it out.
Terrible situation for both parties, particularly Tris. If I was the seller I'd refund Tris, selling the Ceramic LV if necessary and try and get a refund from the seller I bought from. Really makes you think about buying used, luckily in the 5 or so years I've been here I think this is a first.
Forget the law.
I feel bad for the OP and Tris, both.
My solution would be OP returns half the money to Tris till Rolex sorts out the situation.
In the event watch is gone for good, they both suffer equally and that would be a fair thing.
None of them is at fault. Tris is the last and the most recent link in the chain but OP is an innocent victim too.
refunds will have to go down the line to this point but chance that the original owner if they were dodgy sold it on then did an insurance claim so i presume authorities will check that out but insist that they do, what information can dutch guy provide and get intouch with previous seller etc?
feel sorry for both parties im sure they will both work out but id imagine it could a will take sometime
shame the watch manufacturers don't use immobilise(used for electronics, mobiles etc) for this situation then at least end users as well as dealers can be careful and check a worldwide database
Last edited by Seamaster77; 12th March 2015 at 19:48.
As bad as this is, there's one lesson in this, don't buy watches with money you can't really miss, if you have to give up a study because of the refund of one watch, you are clearly not spending your dosh wisely.........
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
A very unfortunate situation for both parties.
Many comments have made as to the legal title to the property in question and alluded to the proposition that this may disputed on the basis of various laws and jurisdictions etc. Such matters of dispute are normally adjudicated by courts and not by Rolex/retailer, I wonder what authority Rolex/retailer are using to determine title?
Wise words.....gotta get priorities right....
Stolen cars sold here from the uk recently even if bought in good faith caused a chain reaction and left some people very unhappy
Not the thief
Just by reporting something as stolen it doesnt mean it actually is
A lawyer can help
I don't get this part. What would have happened had the OP 'clicked' with the watch? Give up the study to keep it? He's already said he didn't buy it with the intention of flipping.
OP also appears to own a 116610 LV ... Is this true OP?
Rolex are not determining title; they are only going on the information in their lost/stolen register. As you say, actual title is or will be decided by insurers, police, courts, etc. (and the lost/stolen register reflects this).
Money exchanged hands by bank transfer, as the OP wasn't familiar with PayPal.
I'd just moved house (probably within a week! ) and didn't have any household insurance.
I'm assuming that Rolex regard the holder of the title to be whoever registered it stolen with them, but will hopefully find that out tomorrow when I call them.
You're both forgetting there's a big difference between paying 3000 once and paying it, and then also refunding it.
You missed the bit out about getting the 3k back in the middle.
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
- Bender Bending Rodríguez
Refund for the buyer, no if's no but's.
and as for the bitter farmer........... Bless.
But you paid 3000 once them received 3000 so you should have the 3000 available to refund and be no worse off cash wise than if you'd kept the watch when you originally bought it.
I appreciate that you're an innocent party too but you do give the impression that you're trying to "walk away" from the problem.
Not sure how you reach that conclusion but I dont see it that way.
Why not then, genuine question?
Sorry, no sympathy here,
If you are into serial flipping watches, there's cash involved, if you need to quit a study to pay someone back, just don't play with the big boys, grow up first and learn to get your priorities straight.
Pay back time I'd say.
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
OP - do you still own a 116610LV?
I tend to agree with huertecilla in posts 88+100 before I bought my rolex I contacted rolex uk as to checking it on their register and was told by a very posh lady only ads can access it now and one of those would do the check, when I contacted all my local ads they all refused even when I offerd to pay a few people on here have had theirs checked at ads without a problem would love to know which ones ?
Seems rolex are trying to stitch up the used market and doing a good job
I'm not a lawyer.
However, I don't think we can say the transaction took place on TZ, can we. The BT was paid in a transaction between buyer and seller internationally and that was distinct from TZ. The comms were through PM on TZ but that's just a channel.
As I say, I'm not a lawyer so my interpretation could be wrong.
Last edited by AlphaOmega; 12th March 2015 at 20:20.
This is a nightmare situation for all concerned, and could easily have happened to any of us (worth bearing that in mind before convening the kangaroo court of TZ-UK opinion). I never heard of anybody checking that a watch wasn't registered stolen before buying it.
The question occurs, is there in fact any way of doing that?
Double post.
Why dont I see it that way? Because there is a contract between the parties that was made without anything documenting the governing law or jurisdiction of that contract and consequently one applies ROME I and II on governing law and the Brussels regulation on jurisdiction.
how did you come to a different view?
To add to the problem, legal fees will probably be non-trivial given the three jurisdictions involved. I think it may be a job for a specialist rather than the usual familly lawyer. If it ends up in court then I am afraid the OP will lose out, however that may take quite a long time to resolve. My advice would be to initially try and keep the lawyers out of this matter if at all possible purely for cost reasons. Legal fees will soon eat up the cost of a 3k watch and still leave the OP owing the original 3k. Try and find a resolution amongst all the parties involved - but it will probably be painful to someone. :(
What a nightmare; seller needs to refund ASAP then chase his own refund.
Why is the database not public? Making it public would have to make the theft of watches less attractive to criminals thus making ownership safer for normal people.
Keeping the database private makes the trade of stolen watches easier ... why would Rolex support that?
Id say the answer to that is yes. There is a nice picture of it here in the for sale thread for the explorer.
http://www.horlogeforum.nl/read.php?...42#msg-3089942
So the lack of funds argument for a refund looks rather flimsy to me....
While I agree with resolving matters out of court wherever possible, the parties do need to appreciate their legal positions so they can make their decisions.
A claim can be brought here in England. Court fee is £80 and no lawyers are needed.
if a judgment is obtained that can be enforced in Europe for a few hundred Euros I should think.
Not a big deal in the context of a few thousand pounds at stake.
but the position is pretty clear as to who needs to do what and I am confident that they will resolve this without recourse to law.
I'm not going to make comment on the two people involved, it sounds like this situation has come about through no fault of their own.
Yesterday I received my first high end watch from marksh (hero thread coming shortly) and he suggested taking it to the RSC to buy a new link as a means of having the watch checked on the L&S register. A great idea which cost me an extra £50 but gave me a greater level of confidence in the sale. However I do agree that Rolex should however publish their list publically, I see no down side to doing this.
Yes, the problem with this of course is that if it had been on the register, you would no longer have the watch. The ideal thing would be to check it without actually having to hand it over to Rolex.
If this business about the title being magically made legitimate at some point in the chain then wouldn't that be the better angle of attack? If that holds water than it is Rolex at fault here for incorrectly deeming the latest owner is not the legal owner and subsequently retaining it. Further, it means the OP has no legal or moral obligation to pay up.
I guess a court would need to rule on it, but which one and how you would go about seeking that decision I have no idea ;)
Actually this is good advice, but more for Tris rather than the OP. It would certainly be the way for Tris to recover from the OP in the event that an agreement cannot be made. However in my experience it is an unpleasant for all concerned - certainly not friendly - but it certainly bangs heads together.
When I asked rolex why they had made their register private they said they were being inundated with idiots looking at watches on ebay and ones that had bought fakes and it was taking up too much of their time
Posting Permissions
