Well no - that bit of advice is completely free!Originally Posted by Cirrus
I sent the letter with all evidence and paperwork straight away to Kings Hill recorded delivery. I have a feeling from what the gentleman at St James's implied, that the watch will also be sent to the Rolex Lost and Stolen Department at Kings Hill, but not entirely sure about that.
Yeah, this might sound daft, but I'd rather have the watch back than the money. I thought it looked amazing, and had spent time and money getting the hands and bezel sorted so it looked perfect (in my eyes).
RE the legal obligation of a refund, it appears to be a bit more complicated as Dutch law might have a different precedent to UK law. I'm not sure if this is correct, and still not sure where exactly I stand, legally.
Well no - that bit of advice is completely free!
Especially given it was stolen in Germany.
One thing this brings home is that if the Netherlands sale of stolen goods turns out to be correct ... I'd think twice before dealing with anybody in the Netherlands!
Have you informed the police you have been sold stolen goods?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
If you're not a lawyer, you can't be 100% sure! Under UK law, I think if you buy an item in good faith you cannot be prosecuted for selling stolen goods. If you choose to keep the item, it's up to someone else to legally pursue you for it.
In this case, I think the OP could refuse the refund and Tris would need to take legal action. There would be no guarantee he'd win though?
The google translation is impenetrable, but there still seems to be uncertainty. Being "competent to transfer the goods" may mean that the person transferring is beyond prosecution, but can you confirm with absolute clarity and certainty that TITLE to the goods somehow becomes legally the recipient's, even where the person transferring them did not have legitimate title ?
Sorry to press the point but it is an odd one and may be quite relevant to the OP.
Haywood M
Absolutely agree !
Haywood M
Well, speaking to Kings Hill is surely the next thing to do. They can tell you more than anyone about what their procedures are and what will happen next.
Kings Hill might also be able to put you in touch with the current owner of the watch (most likely an insurance company). If so, you might be able to make them an offer for it but this will involve effectively paying twice for the watch!
I think the only way you are going to find out exactly where you stand is by consulting a solicitor.
But morally speaking (and possibly still legally speaking, despite what we have been told here about Netherlands law), JTrapman owes you the money you paid for the watch. If he can't repay it in one go I'd be looking for it in instalments or possibly by payment in kind (e.g. through a watch of similar value).
Indeed. It's very worrying that good faith (apparently) legitimises legal title of stolen goods... but only in the Netherlands! I wonder if there are any other EU countries with such a law.
I know. Legally, how can you prove it was bought in good faith? Surely that just legalises the handling of stolen goods?
No I haven't. I'm hoping that it won't come to this, and I don't know if Scotland Yard would care either. This really is not my area of expertise, as it isn't Jeroen's, but he knows that I can't afford to lose this money, so is sorting out whatever needs to be done his end; which I believe he is doing.
I don't think for a second that he's a bad guy, and if you could read his PM's I'm sure you'd agree with me.
An interesting point for cross border law. If the Dutch seller was legally entitled to sell the item, then does this mean that the British buyer has full legal title? If so, are Rolex in the wrong for depriving the legal owner of his watch?
I have no problem making the pm's public Tris. Might be of interest to some. I am trying to contact the previous owner regarding the matter.
I've edited my post to be more precise.
The article 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.
So now it comes back to the question: when was the watch reported as stolen? It's a watch from 1992, so it might be a long time ago.
Last edited by Skyfire; 12th March 2015 at 16:57.
Yup - as long you paid a realistic amount for it according to an above post ... an amazing position for a nation to take given we live in a world of international buying and selling!
It might be worthwhile as you may end up being covered under your household insurance and for that you'll need a police reference (or for that matter, if you want access to your insurance legal helpline).
Agreed, lets hope you can both come to an amicable agreement where neither of you lose out.
I feel for both parties, I really do. Some of the advice here is excellent and some people really know what they're talking about. For me it would be wise to wait for the outcome of the Rolex / Police discussions before making any decisions on how to proceed. I know that's difficult for the current owner but patience might be prudent here.
Hopefully these discussions will end in a result for both parties with the watch being free to leave the possession of Rolex and back to its current owner.
Having bought the watch and being in the middle of this would make me feel like I wanted a refund immediately so I fully understand the position of the current owner. However I also feel physically sick for the seller as, if he genuinely can't repay the money, what the hell does he do? Usually people don't have that kind of money lying around 'spare' (although I appreciate that some do) and nobody that sells a high-end watch should / could be expected to keep the value as a 'float' in case this kind of thing happens in 1, 5 or 10 years time.
My sincere best wishes to both of you for a satisfactory outcome.
Nor can a lawyer if one is being pedantic. ;-)
I believe that the offence of handling stolen goods requires knowledge that the goods are stolen and an element of dishonesty. However, this offence is not our concern here.
We are concerned only with legal title to the goods and what I said on that point is correct. Specifically, JTrapman had no legal title (as far as the UK is concerned) and so could not pass it on to Tris, meaning that Tris is owed the money he paid for the goods and could sue to recover it.
If this was all in the UK then there would be no doubt about Tris winning in court: JTrapman has not delivered what was agreed and received payment for. He was unable to pass on legal title as far as the UK is concerned.
But the question is whose jurisdiction applies and has the contract been fulfilled under the applicable jurisdiction(s)? There is also the practical issue of enforcing any judgment.
Thus, if JTrapman can't or won't pay up, then it seems that the only route forward for Tris is to consult a solicitor who is familiar with intra-EU civil litigation. Ho hum.
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 17:03.
It's an interesting question, isn't it. I presume there is some EU law which at least mediates this kind of cross border legal incompatibility. I think Josh referred to some candidates earlier.
It's always possible to repay money... eventually, for an honest person. Paying in instalments is potentially an option. It is the kind of thing that a court might order in the UK, for example.
Last edited by markrlondon; 12th March 2015 at 17:05.
It was reported as stolen a year ago.
It might be possible to avoid Dutch law here by claiming by in Tort (innocent misrepresentation might fit the bill here).
Then the governing law is determined by Article 4.2 of Rome II and allows English law to govern the dispute.
The English court will also have jurisdiction to hear the claim under 7.2 of the Brussels Reg.
Mate, I don't think anyone here thinks your the bad guy, like I said it's just very unfortunate.
That said, like I stated in our PM's I'm going to need either the watch back or the money, which is what I think you, and every member here would expect.
The fact that you're seeking legal advice to get the refund from your seller in Holland helps reinforce my view that you're a nice guy, and want to get this sorted out as quickly as possible.
Do you know if EU law allows a civil judgment by an English court to be enforced in another EU country? I presume yes but I can also imagine it might be easier said than done.
How complex...three different legislatures with at least one major difference as regards title. Is there lawyer in the house?
A Comparison of German Moveable Property Law and English Personal Property Law
...I gave up soon after the first Latin phrase.
I hope that Rolex put some effort into finding out the legalities and will assist all parties to sensible resolution. I'm sure they retain some competent lawyers.
Gosh... even more "interesting"!
I don't think having a rolex service receipt makes any difference as someone could do a dodgy insurance claim years after it was sold and with an old watch with many owners could make it even more likely.
What rolex and all the other high end watch manufactures need to do is enable transfer of ownership registered with them much the same as when you buy a car especially as a lot of their watches cost as much as a car and with the sort of profits they make and their recorces is some thing that is easily achievable with computer data bases.
I feel sorry for tris and feel this could be a ticking bomb for all of us who have brought expensive watches privatly
It does make you think, doesn't it? You're right that they should have an online database to pass ownership on. Such a simple thing to do really.
Yes it does. An English judgement will be enforced in Holland as if it were a Dutch judgement and using the enforcement tools available under Dutch law.
As ever this is a general statement and there are exceptions, but thats the principle.
Thanks. That is what I would have expected but it is dangerous to assume such things.
My feelings, exactly!!
-flugzeit
If JTrapman is a half decent guy he should immediately refund Trisdg. Whether knowingly or not, he sold a stolen watch to Trisdg and took his money. It cannot be right that now he knows it was stolen he has now passed the buck and can walk away with the money and leave Trisdg with the problem. JTrapman should refund Trisdg immediately, and then try to get his money back from the person that sold it to him.
This is a forum of honourable people. Unlike eBay you can feel safe buying from a forum member on SC. Well, if JTrapman doesn't refund Trisdg, and in a hurry, I am absolutely certain that I am speaking for the majority on here that will never deal with him for anything.
A fascinating and apparently quite complicated situation, but very unfortunate and I do sympathise with both parties. I do hope it ends well; please let us know.
The irony here is that an ebay sale would have offered the buyer some protection...
Did the watch come with box/papers?
Just curious as I would assume having them would indicate a certain amount of ownership power.
A Rolex service receipt proves that the watch had not been reported stolen (as far as Rolex's register is concerned) at the time of the service. Thus if an earlier owner made a fraudulent insurance claim years after they sold the watch it is likely (in the scenario you posit) that there would be service records in existence between the time of the sale and the time at which the watch was added to the lost/stolen register. At the very least, the fraudulent claimer could not be sure that this was not the case.
If a later owner then sent the watch in for service (after the eventual fraudulent insurance claim was made), the fraudulent insurance claim would very likely come to light since it would beg the question of why the claim was made after earlier service(s) were carried out (at which times the watch was of course not found to be on the register). It might take some investigation to establish that title had been legitimately passed on but this particular scenario does not worry me too much.
In this context, the only way for a fraudulent insurance claim to work without too much risk is for it to be made quickly, before a new (innocent) owner of the watch can send it in for service. Even then, if the innocent new owner can show that he bought it from the previous owner then the fraudulent claim will come to light.
Sadly, and especially in the last five years or so for Rolex watches, yup.
HM
Many a stolen watch has boxes and papers, sadly.
Separately, many that are the subject of fraudulent post-sale claims of loss are similarly accompanied by such "provenance." Boxes and papers are wrongly assumed so often to provide protections which they do not !
HM
He only had the watch a week before he sold it. Passed the buck to Trisdg .. Then walk away trousering a profit too.
So to get this straight, the watch was stolen in Germany a year ago, ends up at a German watch convention, is sold to a Dutch gentleman who then flips it within a year to another Dutch gentleman, who then flips it in less than a week to a UK buyer? What a sorry-arse mess and I feel for all parties involved, except the scrote who stole it in the first place, if indeed it was stolen? Could it have been an insurance scam, so the watch was sold to a German dealer (seller at the convention) then reported stolen for the insurance? It could get murkier and murkier. The German/Dutch police need to go back to the original owner who reported the theft and work it through from there.
I truly hope you both sort it and everyone comes away from this intact
No.
As was pointed out the dutch position is not that different from the UK one. IT DOES NOT AFFECT TITLE. The German bloke who reported it or his insurance company is still owner according to dutch law.
The holder of the watch is the one who has it confiscated and as far as the police is concerned that is the end of it.
The money chain is a civil matter.
There is a LOT of this chain hassle with stolen bicycles in the Netherlands.
Again no central publicly accessible register :-)
Yes, the seller should refund, should refund, should refund....
As was mentioned already this is a chain and will end SOMEWHERE.
The bloke who bought the watch in Germany has two options; the seller and/or the organizer.
If the seller on the fair cannot be traced, then it seems the least unfair that the organizers end up with the loss as after all they profited for the sales event if that what the fair was.
Both forum members are victims, links in the same chain here. I see no difference. Nor can I see any problems with UK vs. Dutch law.
The bottom line is that with no register accessible for buyers the ADs have the monopoly on safe sales. AhhhhhTHAT is why it is not public!!! So they can make better margins still on used watches.
To TS's defence, he did sell the watch within a week, but for the same amount he bought it for, so he didn't flip it to make a profit, but because he didn't have a click with the watch.
If the buyer (Tris) used PayPal[1] to make the purchase is there not recourse through PayPal given that the item sold was stolen? Its actually one of the reasons I find PP preferable to a bank transfer.
I notice the sale thread for the watch in question offered PP as an option.
-flugzeit
Was the watch paid for in cash or through a Bank Transfer. Any chance of contacting the bank if it was done by BT and trying to get the money back via the Dutch bank due to stolen goods. Clutching at straws really as this seems a tricky situation to resolve
That's a really inflammatory statement with, unless you know things we don't, no substance. How many of us have sold watches within a week? Come on, most of us.
What do you mean by passing the buck? It looks to me like you're saying he knew it was stolen? Can you prove that? You need to be really careful making accusations like that. Assuming he did make a profit, which you don't know for certain, what has that got to do with it?
This isn't remotely anything to do with me, I merely saw fit to empathise with both parties. You might do well to do similar.
The difference between you and me is that I don't go around advising farmers on how to make bales of hay...
I've never known any bank to get involved like that when it is bank transfers - they just shrug and say "not our problem" - there was a case last year where a woman was regularly receiving money from someone else in error and when it was discovered the bank wouldn't even tell them who she was (Does that ring any bells with anyone and did I get it right?).
This is really unfair. I'm also standing to lose a lot here too, it's not just Tris who's up shit creek, and I am doing everything in my power to make all well. I'm trying to remain decent in my reactions here, but reactions like these are hard not to take personal.
This.
Also, irrespective of Netherlands law or the OP's nationality or domicile, as SC is on a UK site (presumably hosted on a UK server) I'd assume the sale has occurred in UK.
Last edited by Archduke; 12th March 2015 at 18:27.
I didn't suggest he knew it was stolen. But now he does he should refund Tris immediately. Why won't he do that?
Passing the problem and the loss on to Tris is not on.
Of course I don't know if he made a profit, We don't know that he didn't either.
You have to take up your loss with the person you bought it from. You can't expect Tris to pay for your problem.
So why say he did then?
There is a difference between desire and ability - if he doesn't have the money then no amount of wishing to make the situation right is going to help.
If he has the money but is unwilling to refund it then that is a different matter, but nothing I have read in this thread seems to suggest this is the case.
OP should perhaps clarify his position on this...
Posting Permissions
