Quote:
Originally Posted by TheVTCGuy
Really? No damage? So, if you desired to purchase a Rolex, the first place you would look is an AD. Are you going to consider purchasing from THIS AD? That (allegedly) sold the watch you desired out the back door so they could make a much higher profit, and thereby eliminating the opportunity of YOU purchasing that watch at MSRP? You would feel comfortable dealing with THAT AD as opposed to another huh? Well then by all means, give them all your business.
|
Yea, but consider how many pay grey prices anyways, in order to get coveted timepieces. You think anyone who'd be willing to do that would think twice before accepting one at MSRP from an AD, any AD? So far all I've seen for sure is that their labor practices (which salespeople have "access" to Rolexes) are shady, and that the lesson to the consumer is that even within the same dealer, different salespeople may have access to different inventory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drfrankenstein
This could damage their reputation if everything broke the right way.
Your average jury or judge isn't going to have sympathy for someone who is selling luxury goods from a retail location for additional, untaxed profit, akin to scalping.
Furthermore, the defendant can claim that Rolex puts unfair demands on his business as an AD and this requires him/her to bend/break the rules in what is a rampant practice anyway, this makes Rolex look bad.
Obviously this is all a stretch but it does have the potential to go bad for all parties involved.
|
We don't know that the profits were untaxed (contrary to popular belief, not all cash transactions are for tax avoidance). Perhaps CDP in fact fears IDOR/IRS more than it fears Rolex retribution :).