If I recall correctly, the applicable law for a contract of sale is the place of delivery. Let me check and I'll get back.
I suppose that's my point. Rightly or wrongly I'd feel obligated to return the cash to the buyer at once, irrespective of other considerations. And, as I say my only take-away (and the only reason I posted at all), is to make the point that I'd like to only do deals with folk who feel the same sense of obligation. Because if the people on either side of a bargain have different expectations then that could lead to some nasty issues, if and when it all goes paws-up.Originally Posted by Guitarfan
Last edited by simoscribbler; 13th March 2015 at 13:57.
If I recall correctly, the applicable law for a contract of sale is the place of delivery. Let me check and I'll get back.
I was trying to explain again my view that an immediate refund is premature. Until Rolex get back to Tris he doesn't know if the watch is his after all or not, lots of scenarios could play out here.
Maintaining the status quo until more facts are known would be my approach. Once (and if!) 100% confirmation that Tris is owed a refund arrives I would expect Jeroen to transfer funds immediately, as I'm sure most people would.
Too many variables/possibles in the air right now to make any call the "right one".
Even having a recent RSC service warranty card is no proof that the watch has not been stolen, it merely shows the serial number, model number and service date. You can only tie the watch to the seller by reference to other documentation such as sales receipts, insurance valuations and other forms of personal ID if you are to be sure that it's not been stolen. That's not always possible and so the fact that Rolex do not allow their customers to access the lost & stolen database is short-sighted to say the least, and leads to the unpleasant scenarios Milton mentioned earlier.
Last edited by dkpw; 13th March 2015 at 14:14. Reason: Typo
Now JT has confirmed that he'll make good, it's entirely up to Tris as to what he wants to do.
As long as he's happy to wait for the outcome from the investigations then that's all that matters.
Hope you both get this sorted...
I do find it somewhat confusing why someone would buy luxury watches whilst earning 8eur/hr. unless it’s inheritance/present it does sound a little naïve but each to their own.
Sadly, I had a similar story about 6 years ago when I purchased a dodgy car - I lost thousands but the lesson to be more prudent subsequently was valuable in itself (sadly I couldn't pass the financial hit back up the chain...).
Best of luck to you both
+1
Now that's established, it's time to unsaddle the horses and lock the pitchforks away for a bit!
In some respects it's fortunate that the seller is as engaged and cooperative as he is, I can imagine some others being far less so.
Well, I think the positive spin on this is that the problem has come to light very soon after the deal went down... Imagine if Tris hadn't discovered the alleged stolen status of the watch for 2 or 3 years?
I also think that until such time as someone tells Tris (Rolex, police, whoever) "you'll never get that watch back" then a refund isn't required.
by way of example.
suppose you sold someone a watch, the buyer claimed it had a fault. So being amicable you agree to pay for the fault to be rectified.
So off to St. James the buyer trots, 'we can't fix it here' they say, 'it'll have to go to Kent'
OK
a week later Rolex ring the buyer, the fault is far worse than first diagnosed, it'll cost big money to repair.
The seller agrees to take the watch back as is, and issue a refund. No drama.
But, Rolex say it'll take 2 weeks to send the watch back to the buyer (who would then have to return it to the the seller).
so.... Would you the seller, issue the refund now, or wait for the return of the watch?
==============
Rolex need to let Tris know what's happening, and only then can this be resolved.
It really is that simple. Sorry if you disagree.
+1 to this Dave, well said. The OP and Tris are clearly in contact and getting things sorted.
I can see why the OP pleading poverty is irritating some, though, that's a strange position to take. Extra kudos to Tris for his level head!
I meant (hoped ?) when we trade on here in particular although that does still surprise me as I would have expected these claims to be an attempt to "lose" the watch but still keep it rather than have the cash twice but there you go...
I appreciate all of the posts on this thread.
Regarding my position, I actually feel differently to the majority of members stating I should be immediately refunded.
Maybe I'm mad, but I believe that I still own the watch that Rolex are looking after as I purchased it in good faith, and I'm still hoping (although less confident after the conversation I just had with Rolex UK) to get it back.
If I get the word back that in fact I'm not the rightful owner, and it indeed has to go back to the original guy in Germany, or his insurers, then yes, I will be expecting a full refund.
Here are the last PM's we've exchanged, which Jeroen is happy for me to share:
Quote Originally Posted by JTrapman
Morning Tris, hope you had some sleep.
I just went to the different law firm, who told me it will probably go like this: we have to wait what Rolex and the police say, then you and I will make an arrangement with the information we got. It's possible they'll say you are the llegitimate owner, but it's also possible they hand the watch to the original owner or the insurance company.
If this is the case, you and I will agree upon what to do next (refund, half refund, wait a bit, whatever)
I case of a refund you and I will deal directly, and then I have to go get a refund at Rene.
This was also what I was thinking.
So, my suggestion would be waiting what Rolex and the police have to say, and then, with that information you and I will discuss how to handle it from there.
Like I said, you need not worry. I will make sure you end up okay, either with the money or the watch. Let's just hope I won't be out €3000.
I regret the way the topic turned out, especially since I am really trying to do the good thing here, but what's done is done. It won't effect our communication.
Hope this eases your mind a bit mate. You'll end up okay, we just need to have a little patience (lot harder than it sounds, i know).
Quote Originally Posted by trisdg
Thanks for the message.
I've literally just got the phone to Rolex UK, and to be honest as they've only just received the watch and my letter/paperwork very little has happened.
The lady I spoke to has informed me that Rolex hasn't confiscated it, they are just holding it, and that it will stay at Rolex UK.
They have sent all the details to Rolex Geneva who have forwarded the details on to the authorities in Germany.
She said in her experience she's never had a case where the watch had been stolen so recently, so couldn't say whether I'd get it back. Most stolen watches they deal with have been stolen 15+ years ago, in which case as long as you can provide proof of purchase that you bought it in good faith you usually get it back. But this being such a recent theft, it actually got stolen AT THE END OF LAST YEAR (which surprised me), she honestly doesn't know what will happen.
So I have her email and she's advised me to give it a week and then chase them up.
If it comes down to you refunding me the full amount, I don't see how you would have any problem recovering the money from the guy you bought it from, especially with all the proof we'll have from Rolex, as well as your bank statements showing that you'd refunded me the money.
But let's just wait and see what happens. Hopefully it won't drag on, but with it being an international case I have a feeling it might.
Will be in touch soon.
Cheers,
Tris
Any and all further comments on this thread will still be hugely appreciated.
More REASONABLE????
They CREATE that reason by maintaining a secret list AND holding a watch when it is on it which still is VERY odd imo.
If your car dealer, upon ordering parts, is informed that the VIN of the car you brought in is of a stole vehicle they alert the police, not confiscate the car.
Rolex are CREATING insecurity/scare so you think the AD premium is value for money. Fear sells. BAD business and I am staying well away.
I would agree with this - see what Rolex say. If it turns out it will go back to Tris shortly then that is fine, otherwise a refund will need to be arranged. I actually had a vaguely similar experience with an iPhone I sold on SC (it was an unopened warranty replacement). It went wrong after a few days and I suggested the purchaser took it into Apple as they should get a replacement but any problems either I would resolve with Apple or I would refund as the buyer preferred.
I think he is saying, as per Hayward Milton's post, some of the premium goes to standing behind their product & good name however many years down the line the problem emerges nothing to do with a lost/stolen register ?
Let's positive this up a little bit....
She said in her experience she's never had a case where the watch had been stolen so recently, so couldn't say whether I'd get it back. Most stolen watches they deal with have been stolen 15+ years ago, in which case as long as you can provide proof of purchase that you bought it in good faith you usually get it back.
doesn't that read better?
lets hope it's true!
"As long as you can provide proof of purchase that you bought it in good faith you usually get it back"
So let's say I'm the original owner, my watch is stolen, and I have no insurance or insurance won't pay out, so I have suffered a material loss.
Are we really saying that Rolex would allow someone two or three links along the chain to keep my stolen watch, as long as they bought it in good faith? That simply cannot be right, however many years have gone by.
Huh???
Art stolen during WW2 and recovered today gets returned to the heirs, no matter how the last holder got it.
Again I think it odd that Rolex is 'holding' (euphemism for confiscating) the watch. I would expect only the police to have that authority rather than any which one company or person.
I think the conversation with Rolex has provided some reassurance - fingers crossed the watch is returned
It just raised more red flags with ME.
Sorry, that should have also said, that is if the insurance company has paid out to the person that got it stolen.
Wow, intersting thread. Jeroen, have you contacted the Dutch seller and any indication that you will get a refund?
No, Rolex don't decide who gets to keep the watch, the authorities do.
The lady at Rolex was probably just relating her experience.
I'm not saying it's a good thing or giving an opinion on the rights or wrongs of how Rolex or anyone else operate simply how I feel about things which may have happened. I'm not supporting dealer premiums just suggesting they might be worth the extra for some reasons. I'm not just talking about Rolex AD's but dealers in general. Rolex didn't create the problem thieves did.
Sorry if my post offended you.
Ian
Also the authorities should take possession of the presumed stolen goods, not any which one company or person.
The thing is that when you voluntarily hand over your watch to the AD, because it was voluntary so you can't denounce a theft.
All in all a very tacky situation which would be ever so much less tacky if the list were accessible.
"Most stolen watches they deal with have been stolen 15+ years ago, in which case as long as you can provide proof of purchase that you bought it in good faith you usually get it back."
Again, the statute of limitations does not apply to matters of title under UK law. You could perfectly well have a watch taken from you that was stolen 40 years ago, if the evidence supported the claim.
Practically, the lady is correct in that often a 15-year old claim is essentially untraceable, insurers files deleted etc and ( in the absence of any reasonable alternative ) you will be allowed to retain the watch, but the claim could still always be revived by the original owner.
Haywood Milton
oh, that's a shame, you were soooooooo close to buying one as well!!
Tris someone has taken your watch that you have proof of purchase for.
One thing you can be sure of is that Rolex, or any other private person or body, in the UK do not have the legal powers to seize and withhold your goods. I don't know what Swiss law would say but this is the UK not Switzerland.
The Police can seize and hold assets that may be involved in a criminal offence, Rolex cannot. If they immediately handed it to the Police they are probably in the clear. However, if they are still in possession of it whilst they make 'checks' they are in breach of the law.
Their statements to you about it being listed on some sort of register because someone else has said it is stolen is just hearsay and not evidential. They have no personal knowledge of the status of that watch.
You must write to Rolex, with evidence of your purchase, demanding the return of your property, if it is still in their possession, or for them to quote the legal authority they are relying on to withhold it from you.
You must threaten them with civil action if they refuse to return it immediately.
This should stir things up and get things moving quickly, you can decide on your next move depending on their response.
Mitch
Yes, they really do think they're above the law.
You're missing the point. Proof of purchase is not necessarily proof of title or legal ownership. Rolex, in my view rightly, are responding to an insurance and police report of a theft and will dispose of the watch once its ownership is formally established. Ultimately they are looking after their customers' interests.
Both Tris and JTrapman have agreed a way forward, which is to wait for Rolex to get back to them. Threatening Rolex with legal action would achieve little, beyond legal fees.
They are dealing with this like grown ups it seems.
I'll watch from the sideline from now on.
And, if Jeroen hadn't come up with all that quitting his study nonsene, he might even have come away totally unscathed.
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
Rolex are 'rightly' withholding this persons property are they?
What legal right are you referring to? Quote the statute.
I am afraid legal matters in this country don't rely on what YOU think is right, they depend on legislation passed by parliament.
If they have passed the article to the Police, fine. I have a feeling they haven't though. How do they know it is stolen? They have no personal knowledge of this. They have a record, made by someone, on the say so of someone else, that it was stolen. That is not evidence, that is hearsay and I suspect the Police would not accept that as sufficient to launch an investigation. They would want the actual owner with proof of ownership to make the complaint.
If Tris proceeds as I suggest he should quickly get clarity. In the event it does not cost that much to launch a claim, just over £100 for this sort of amount, which is reclaimable. Rolex do not have a defense unless they have passed it to the Police.
Mitch
Last edited by Mitch; 13th March 2015 at 17:06.
I'm with Mitch, if they say it's stolen then they should hand it over to the Police with their evidence for the Police to conduct an investigation , that's not Rolexs job . In any other scenario of withholding property or goods because it's suspected stolen the Police would be involved immediately.
As it stands Rolex are withholding property that Tris believes is his without showing any evidence to the contrary. That can't be right.
Last edited by JasonM; 13th March 2015 at 18:06.
So from what I am understanding, we need to look into the legalities of the actions Rolex has undertaken?
You should be looking at all aspects of this.
Obviously Rolex will hand this over to the police at some point? Shouldn't they give the prior owner (one out of pocket) some sort of receipt of relative crime number involved in the dispute. Perhaps credit card or household insurance will cover it.
We are, of course. I spent today and yesterday trying to figure everything out and getting as much information as possible. Unfortunately I get a lot of mixed answers and information, even from acknowledged and respected law offices. But, I guess the main thing to do now is await Rolex' response.
I would say that Tris should make it known to Rolex, in no uncertain terms, that he believes he is the legal owner of the watch. The party at the other end of the chain, particularly if it is an insurance company, may decide that the cost of challenging that assertion may not be worth it once they have determined that Tris is in no way connected with the original crime.
And the CIVIL claim will be for what Tort?
(and to cut to the end of the conversation - s.8.)
You can be sure that if Rolex are still in possession of this watch they are in breach of the law.
They have no legal authority to conduct investigations into a possible criminal offence. They can make whatever checks they like and make a complaint to the Police passing over whatever evidence they have obtained but they cannot be seizing and holding assets possibly connected to this offence. They do not have the power or authority.
It would be bloody anarchy if private people could just start seizing other peoples property on a suspicion.
Mitch
I would go further and say to the Police that he believes he is the legal owner of the watch and insist its handed over to them. At the very least it might stay in this country, what happens if Rolex decide to send it to Germany? Its surely not their decision to take. This is a matter for the Police and Tris, not Rolex. I would be going to a Met Police station and telling them Rolex wont give my watch back and you want to report it stolen by them. If this is a criminal matter then report it to the authorities.
It would be a civil matter because you cannot accuse Rolex of the criminal offence of theft as they have a defense, that they might return the watch to Tris.
If you 'borrowed' your neighbours property without asking his permission you could not be charged with theft unless it could be proven that you had no intent to ever return it.
He could put a civil claim against you for his losses though.
Mitch
Last edited by Mitch; 13th March 2015 at 18:56.
I have only skim read this thread but what right do Rolex have to seize the watch in the first place regardless of weather their client was an innocent purchaser or not?
They are not involved in any of the transactions and are not subject to any loss. They are not any kind of law enforcement authority either.
Sure they should report the matter to the police but I can't see they have any authority to seize the watch.
I suspect this is a similar situation to that encountered in the art market. If a piece turns up at one of the auction houses that is listed on one of the stolen art registers, and the seller appears to have legal title, then the auction house will notify the party that registered the loss and give them the opportunity to register a claim through the courts.
My first thought as well but not any more. Be a man and guarantee the payment if necessary but first wait how this ends with Rolex.
Thanks mate at least you read my post correctly rather than jumping to conclusions!
Ian
How would the studies have been paid for if the OP had kept the watch?
This watch was sold through sales corner and If I was in the OP's position I would get a loan in order to refund Tris and take responsibility for trying to resolve the issue myself.
Either you didnt read what I wrote despite the quote or it meant nothing to you.
I've given you the answer to my question and the defence Rolex would run if you tried the claim.
Been looking at all the spurious legal advice and don't want to dissapoint anyone but rolex will do what they want with the watch when they want to
Posting Permissions
