Bingo!Originally Posted by rmclachlan
this will all boil down to what the Germany police have to say.
and my guess is that Rolex will call them first, before sending off a parcel......
Last edited by adzman808; 12th March 2015 at 23:26.
I just don't get this, surely you just refund the guy straight away and see what you can get back yourself.
1) You spend £3k and end up with a non-essential luxury item on your wrist.
or
2) You spend £3k and end up your rep intact and and have an F91W for telling the time. And the Hulk of course.
Which one of us is the rocket scientist? So I fraudulently claim my watch is stolen, report it to the police and claim insurance. Somehow magically the register knows my claim was fraudulent and my watch will not show up on the register. Really?
Just wondering if the T&Cs of the company that setup this web site and facilitites Sales Corner are robust?
I'm with those arguing that the seller should refund immediately and take responsibility for seeking their own refund. If they could afford to buy the watch originally and didn't buy it to trade on as stated, then I don't understand why refunding would cause the material financial hardship claimed. They could afford their studies with £3k tied up in a wrist watch but now cannot afford their studies unless they have this £3k? Hmmm.
2800 euro's asking price is not very far off 2150 GBP. Throw in the PP charges and maybe a small discount, I don't think the OP made a hefty profit.
Also take into account that when you price it mainland Europe, there's not a UK buyer willing to buy it (except for dealers).
Getting back to the OP's question...Jeroen, you have to refund to do the right thing.
You sell me your watch.
then you make a fraudulent insurance claim.
i take the watch you sold me, to the OEM.
they seize it - it's "stolen"
the police are keen to talk to me.
"But I'm not a thief" I say innocently "look, I bought it off Possu, here's his emails confirming the sale, his bank account I paid the money into - I bought it in good faith"
that's how.
You could always read the guidelines on the sales forum for your answer.
Paul.
Then ...
Police look up national insurance claims database
Police contact insurance company
Insurance company pursue Possu for insurance fraud
Possu meets Big Bubba in the shower block and bites down hard on the soap
lol
Yup, it's the type of scenario that requires damn sight more protection than your no claims discount....
But surely the above is based purely on the sale chain being traceable?
I'm sure even an idiot commiting fraud would move on a watch he/she is looking to report stolen in a manner that is untraceable, so in my mind the trail will only lead back to the first innocent buyer!
Also to the OP and I don't think any previous comments have covered this but myself personally I wouldn't of left the RSC without calling the police and getting them involved from the start!
Your GIFS are funny... Huh huh, huh huh huh
Ok, here's how I think this will go.....
it's a GUESS, it's a HUNCH, it's not worth the screen pixels you're reading it on....
Although a relatively simple scenario on paper, this actual event takes place in over a year, and includes 3 different countries/police forces.
The laws of each country are not harmonised.
Much like a bullsh*t facebook status - it's complicated.
Rolex will contact the German police.
Time will pass.
Eventually the German police force will contact the relevant insurance company (if applicable) or the original owner (if available)
by now after 18-24 months have passed since the watch was reported stolen.
the insurance company have written it off as loss or the original owner is for whatever reason not interested.
Eventually, the watch will be returned to Tris.
however, by this time peer presure will have meant that Tris has had a refund from the original seller (who's name escapes me, sorry)
Tris will be obligated to return the watch to the original seller.
but the seller doesn't want it, he wants the money back.
but this doesn't work for Tris, he already spent the refund on another Rolex.
(they're grown ups, they reach an amicable agreement, they're both good guys AND I'm NOT TRYING TO SUGGEST OVERWISE)
so this poor little Rolex will have ended up being punted about between countries, investigated by the police, by insurance companies, caused massive inconvienience to all concerned, and spent a chunk of it's life in a draw in a Rolex secure office...
As the poor Rolex lies there, it's lubricants drying up, it's tick out of whack with its tock, wanted but never loved......
.....it's dying thoughts as its life force ebbs away.....
......man, f*** being a luxury wristwatch, I mean where's the f***ing luxury in this?
=====
apologies to make light of a serious situation, hope it raised a smile.
Last edited by adzman808; 13th March 2015 at 00:27.
do you want to buy my Rolex, 100% genuine.
GREAT price.
the only thing is, the deal has to be cash and can't involve anything that can trace the sale back to me.
deal?
and that my friend is how to get arrested for receiving stolen goods. (Even if it's actually insurance fraud)
I do feel sorry for the OP but there is someone else I feel more sorry for. The buyer with no money or watch.
To come out with the parts in bold above feels like " I've got some bad news for you" to the buyer. I would want my cash back, end of story. The OP, and the OP only can deal with the chain to recover his own cash and refunding Tris should make even more of an incentive to succeed.
This is very simple. The OP has sold a stolen watch to a member here. The circumstances are irrelevant to the key point - he should now refund the buyer without delay and THEN set about dealing with his own redress. I'm afraid the 'I've got no money' argument doesn't work for me either. It looks as though £2,000 is involved. There are very few people in the developed world (and less who frequent sites like this) who cannot raise, beg or borrow (I won't say steal!) this sort of money if they don't have it. I'm not saying it can be done without sacrifice or temporary difficulty, but it can be done.
At the moment the OP is allowing someone else to suffer the hardship/difficulty and that can't be right.
^ that really.
I've just read through this whole sorry story and feel sorry for both parties.
My take is that there's not a lot more that can be done until we know:
1) What Rolex's Lost & Stolen Department plan to do with the watch. What proccesses do they follow to ascertain ownership (or will they just hand the watch over to law enforcement to do this - and if so, in which country)?
2) Whether the first Dutch buyer (who bought the watch at the fair) is willing to get involved or accept any liability.
3) Whether the German seller can be traced (is there a paper trail to them - receipts? bank statements?) and if so whether they will accept any liability.
4) What German law says about title to a stolen object sold in good faith (which may in turn impact the status of the watch when it went to the Netherlands and then onward to the UK).
I suspect that it may take a while before there's a resolution - but wish the best of luck to both people involved.
I'll repeat what I posted in the draft thread, as I think it's the primary issue here...
What was needed was a categoric assurance that Tris would either have the watch or his money back (i.e. that as the buyer he wouldn't suffer any loss), even if determining which of those it would be might require a little more time and some further communication with Rolex.
That assurance has not been forthcoming, and so far as I'm concerned (thinking specifically in terms of the integrity of SC) everything else is irrelevant. I certainly won't ever buy a watch from anyone who disagrees with that perspective.
You're not wrong Tony, and I rather got the impression that Tris and seller were currently on good terms about this...
That needs to continue, and that's the key here imo...
As you say, it sort of rests with UK Rolex atm, and what they do/say about it.
And Tris needs to drive that... i can't imagine the seller (why can't I remember his name?!) would get very far ringing St. james and asking for a status update....
So they need to be pals about this.... Imo the unwritten rule of SC is, if you're unhappy, then money back, no problem, but when you can't offer the watch back, and apparently the law of one country suggests that the seller is the legal owner of the watch, just not in this country, then things can get complicated...
Things get even more complicated, when a public thread kicks off with many strong opinions and stirring and moral outrage (not aimed at you Tony)
FWIW, my advice to both guys, take it off line, chase Rolex like a bloodhound and see where you are with it in due course... Hopefully Tris can get used to not having the watch (just in case) and the seller can get some funds together (just in case)
My gut feeling is still that ultimately Rolex UK will end up returning the watch to Tris... Just might take 6 months
This is a complicated mess, I hope it gets worked out for both the buyer and the seller. My question is, what gives Rolex the legal authority to confiscate the watch? I would have called the local authorities right then and there if my watch was being seized.
Because it's not his watch is it, and had you called the authorities when they turned up they would have probably seized the watch as stolen property.
See my post 17:
http://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.ph...hlight=tony-gb
OK, so the scenario watch was on the stolen register.
Please keep this scenario realistic. It'd be Big Bubba biting down on the soap.
Is it legal for Rolex to seize a person's property? I thought that even the police need some kind of legal process before they seize something.
Also, if the watch is registered as stolen, what is the point of them starting an investigation? Are they some kind of keystone watch cops? I would have thought that the police would start an investigation.
Starting to wonder if Rolex is more powerful than the police...
All of this has been raised and answered numerous times, above. ;-)
-flugzeit
Apologies. I was too lazy to read all of the above. Please disregard my post. Hangs head in shame.
I've been following this thread from the start and I'm yet to read anything that confirms the legality of the action taken by RSC.
I have to say the initial post by the OP, and the one above, left me worried. It looks an awful lot like the OP is (i) making repayment to the buyer contingent on if he can pass the problem back up the line and get made whole himself before paying Tris. If this is the case then its not on. (ii) The reference to studies, etc., seems more like a means of creating an environment of sympathy and thus direct moral pressure away from the OPs obligation to make Tris whole (as unfair as the whole situation may seem).
Yes, absolutely. This is not a matter of "some of us don't have the same amount of cash to play with as others on here"! Frankly, there is no reason why the money can't be found, raised, or paid back. If not, then the OP shouldn't be studying, or playing with luxuries such as watches, or both.
I'll be completely honest, I always "earmark" cash from any sale and keep it as a float in case anything goes bad... and I would never spend to the limit such that I couldn't pay tuition fees, feed my kids, or something. If this is actually the case for the OP then its existentially and morally problematic.
A couple of years ago I was in a situation after a sale, here on SC, for a similar amount. The watch was stolen while in transit in the UK. To cut a long story short both me and the buyer knew there was a problem with the delivery after a couple of days. I immediately offered to pay back the buyer. We discussed all the options and decided not to do so until we found out more detailed information. About two months later, no watch and not much help from the shipping company. I agreed with the buyer to refund him in full. I had the funds and had planned to put them towards something else. OK, so now I was out the watch and out the cash!!! That's life. I pursued the delivery company and insurance and after almost 18 months I was paid out in full by the insurance.
Tony, this is just how I feel. There has not been a clear assurance and this has nothing to do with the legal details because it relates to personal integrity and moral responsibility. OK, I'm standing on a lofty perch, here, and we're all fallible (!) but this is what Tony, rightly points out, above. These issues are the backbone of an amazing community here and though we can devolve into an "everyone has there own opinion" argument I think that this integrity is, in fact, demonstrated by the majority of members.
-flugzeit
I also place a huge question mark next to Rolex not making their stolen list public, because apparently they get bothered too much about it.
Knowing what I know now I would not touch a used Rolex with a 10 foot pole. It would help a great deal if a punter was able to check a watch himself, instead of having it taken (stolen) by Rolex when he brings it in for a service because they know something he does not know, something that they could easily make public in this day and age.
I hope JT has formulated how he plans to pay trish and informed him of it. I don't see any other viable course of action for him.
Last edited by GrandS; 13th March 2015 at 08:49.
No, you're correct... and what I was implying was that the opinions already given above, in relation to this question (or similar), also seem to dispute the legality of RSCs actions.
-flugzeit
To the OP - did the watch come with B&P?
This is one reason I am loath to buy a Rolex in particular without B&P. Surely B&P indicate a watch was not stolen a) from the wrist or b) a quick theft by an opportunist.
Rolex are the only manufacturer I'm aware of that operate a L&S register and when they stopped public access, to my mind at least, they left used buyers in a very difficult place. I know we've all used the "buy the seller" line, but that is impossible becase you're really buying the seller before that, all the way back up the chain.
Keeping a L&S register, but denying public access - well, it's almost as though Rolex wanted to kill the used market :-(
Last edited by rasputin; 13th March 2015 at 09:03.
Read the thread. The answers are all there.
No. And b&p prove nothing really.
here here, personally when I sell a watch, especially expensive ones, I ring-fence the money for a couple of weeks just in case there is a problem, because once I spend it, I do not have enough money floating around to make a refund straight off.
this stems from the belief, that until the buyer is happy, it is my responsibility (sellers)
no ifs and no buts, a full refund should be made in full, and the OP should then sort this out.
Maybe Tris should contact the police and report his watch has been stolen by Rolex and then they can test the legality of Rolex's actions in confiscating the watch
^^^^this exactly.
I know Jeroen as a good guy to deal with. But not refunding Tris because of a studie is just plain BS and bad form. I'm sure the sale of one of his watches will deal with te problem in a gentlemanly manner and will let him continue his studies. Really tough luck for both guys, but the sale of the 116610LV or a recently acquired Panerai will make it right for Tris. And then Jeroen needs to go back to the Dutch seller to get his money back. Which I am quite sure will happen, because that seller is also a good guy.
Get it from a relative and pay the man back, first things first.
After that, sort out the legal mess.
Sorry, I hope they are still on good terms and sorting this out, but I just don't buy the " I have to quit my study" bit.
Daddel.
Got a new watch, divers watch it is, had to drown the bastard to get it!
Or
in the spirit of the forum we could all contribute £1 to Tris until his loses are covered. Then if the watch is returned to him, he can raffle the watch off to the members who contributed and one lucky member will get a rolex for £1.
I've probably missed a vital detail here which means this idea will fall flat on its face, but given the alleged legal complexities of the situation and that fact that both guys bought the watch in good faith, how about Jeroen refunds 50% of the price immediately, perhaps with a written guarantee to refund the remainder if needed pending the outcome of the investigation? That way they are both carrying some risk/pain/vested interest in getting this sorted by working together? And yes, of course I know (and agree) that Jeroen SHOULD just refund 100%.
This of course requires Tris to agree to take a hit that he clearly doesn't deserve, but it's just an idea. If it's a stupid one don't lynch me, I didn't get much sleep last night!! :-)
In relation to the Rolex L&S register not being made publicly accessible - well that's because it makes buying a used Rolex via any source other than an AD fraught with danger, which ultimately is only good for one party! Shame on them!!
If this is true, then I would advise the OP to sell one of his other (expensive) watches before quitting his studies.
You may be right, in which case should the OP do nothing until then?
As was said earlier, I think until Rolex say what they're doing with the watch everyone holds station. A refund shouldn't be given if there's likelihood that the watch will be returned to Tris, as it sounds like that's Tris' preferred option anyway...
OK... 116610LV and a new Panerai... so no grounds for "crying poor".
Good to hear that other people in the chain are likely to act with the best intentions. Let's hope this is what happens.
-flugzeit
WTF is a student doing owning a Rolex then buying another that he flips 'cause it's not to his tastes.
Then claiming financial hardship ...?
You know what, having bought (always new from an AD) and sold about 20 Rolex between 1990-2014, when I sold my last Rolex watch, a Sub LV earlier this year, I realised that the prices of purchase and servicing had all become a bit silly - and the fun had gone out if it for me as the rise in prices seemed to be attracting a lot of silliness - lots if stories of people getting mugged for their Rolex, excellent fakes, - for the kind of money they now cost, you'll start getting lots of dodgy sellers and the criminal fraternity will get more involved because the profits which can now be had are worth the risk. This is a sad story for all concerned, but I'm glad I had my salad days when Subs started at £2k, frankly it's a rich mans game now - and if buying and selling watches is threatening your education I'd suggest (like me) you're not rich enough to dabble any more!
I also think - hope - that Rolex will have to return it. The more I have thought about this - that Rolex are the sole arbiters of what is and is not stolen based on information they hold and which they wont let anyone else see - the more unfair I think it is.
I think the current owner should send a registered letter to Rolex UK demanding they prove a) the watch is stolen and b) even if so that he he does not hold current title to it. If they prevaricate in the slightest way he should inform them he is going to the small claims court to ask for a judgement and that - if successful - it will result in Bailiffs kicking their door in. Or sheriffs? One of the two...
Bailiffs and sheriffs have disappeared in the new TCG regime...
Assuming the original German owner of the watch received an insurance payout, the watch now belongs to the insurance company. Rolex will be checking the situation and are holding it to return it to the lawful title holder. It's may be annoying for Tris but it's also totally responsible. Put yourself in the position of the owner who lost his watch or the insurance company.
Sadly, everyone downstream from the original theft is also a victim.
Oh. That's disappointing... this would be the Writ of Control thing? I think it amounts to the same thing if one were to mention to the local press that the Rolex offices had been raided and stressed the word "bailiff" ;)
Posting Permissions
