Times Up! Shreve & Co. sued for $500k, man spends over $220k for chance to buy Patek

[llngoc]

I thought the name of the client was already all typed up and stamped from Geneva for application piece?

Originally Posted by dannyp

I don’t know that it’s that simple, though theoretically it should be. Paperwork must be signed by dealer, and I if PP wants to maintain complete consistency with its records then it wouldn’t distribute directly to a consumer. Also the matter of who actually placed the order and whether that’s the part it must be delivered to (plus the need to import via official channels).

I’m not saying you’re wrong, not that me guess was right in the first place, just potential reasons to delay yanking franchise.

[HMHM]

Originally Posted by llngoc

I thought the name of the client was already all typed up and stamped from Geneva for application piece?

Yes. Application pieces are printed with the owner’s name on the certificate itself. There’s even an additional certificate to confirm if the piece is part of a limited release/edition.

[AJMarcus]

I’m not so sure the Plaintiff does not have a case here. If his attorney can depose witnesses such as Sales associates and managers who testify they advised him to purchase unwanted watches and jewelry to obtain the Patek of his dreams knowing full well there’s no way he would get one, he might just win his case. Willful Misrepresentation is fraud in many jurisdictions. Of course it has to be proven with evidence. But in civil actions the burden of proof is much less than in criminal proceedings. If it looks bad for Shreve certainly they would settle rather than lose to a jury. Either way the hit to their reputation could be significant. Let the games continue! Time will tell.

[Etschell]

Originally Posted by codecow

Not really. A good secondary seller (gray) will authenticate, service (if needed), and many offer extended warranties. So in addition to being able to immediately get what you want they offer all those services.

I should have said for new models. Or ones labeled as new....

[hutch300]

I went in last month and literally no one spoke to my wife and I. Not a hello or someone will be with you soon. I was invisible. Comically bad business and I hope he wins. I hate bundling and hate it more when the AD strings someone along.

[Moondoggy]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

I’m not so sure the Plaintiff does not have a case here. If his attorney can depose witnesses such as Sales associates and managers who testify they advised him to purchase unwanted watches and jewelry to obtain the Patek of his dreams knowing full well there’s no way he would get one, he might just win his case. Willful Misrepresentation is fraud in many jurisdictions. Of course it has to be proven with evidence. But in civil actions the burden of proof is much less than in criminal proceedings. If it looks bad for Shreve certainly they would settle rather than lose to a jury. Either way the hit to their reputation could be significant. Let the games continue! Time will tell.

Yes, he will have to get someone onboard from Shreve to get some sort of traction.

[TBT]

This watch thing teaches me something new about people and business every day.

I don't feel either way about his suit. As much as Im tired of the inference of buying to eventually get hot watches, I equally dislike the people that go along with this game.

I brought a CoWorker to introduce to my AD last year and a damn salesman (not the one I work with) told him that influencers with 30K+ followers "go to the top of the list." I was floored, I immediately shut that crap down.

Win, lose, or settlement, this case will be referred to for years to come. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

[Kreyzhorse]

Damn.... I don't understand working to build up a buying history..... The AD may not mark up the watch, but they mark up everything on the front on all the other stuff that you are forced to buy.

[dhucke]

Originally Posted by vitalsigns

Here's what I'm thinking:

The guy's an idiot.

I hope he wins.

This!

[dannyp]

Originally Posted by llngoc

I thought the name of the client was already all typed up and stamped from Geneva for application piece?

Originally Posted by HMHM

Yes. Application pieces are printed with the owner’s name on the certificate itself. There’s even an additional certificate to confirm if the piece is part of a limited release/edition.

Clearly I'm not the target demographic for these pieces

[solowarrior]

I just pray the judge is also wearing a Patek, so that he knows the dirty shit from ADs... lol

Originally Posted by Cassian739

Can't say I'm surprised at all. I do think the man was a fool for spending that much money on a "promise."

Links to Articles:
Hodinkee: Lawsuit Alleges Man Spent $220,000 For The Chance To Buy A Patek Philippe That He Never Got
https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/re...ilippe-lawsuit

Bay Area jeweler made man spend $220,000 so he could buy $109,000 watch he never got: lawsuit
https://www.siliconvalley.com/2023/0...r-got-lawsuit/

[bwdellorf76]

Will be interesting to see if this gets litigated as it is a common practice in the industry.

I am not a lawyer but have been involved in many contracts. You need an offer (I will sell you the watch you really want if you buy this stuff), acceptance (Ok, I do not really want this stuff but will buy it if you are going to sell me the watch I want), Consideration (Here is the cash for the stuff I do not want and am only giving it to you because we agreed that this is the only way I can buy the watch I want). Seems like the Plaintiff held up his side of the contract.

The tricky part here is if it can be proven 1) AD had no intention of ever selling him the watch he wanted to buy and 2) they knew their AD status is getting pulled and continued to milk him.

If it makes it to discovery, then the plaintiff will be able to find out the reason why the AD lost Patek, get any type of internal messages, records, score cards, anything that shows that this guy had to hit a certain spend in order to be offered the watch and it will get messy and expensive. Also, the plaintiff will find other people in similar circumstances and this thing will snowball.

Expecting a settlement as the PR will be bad for whatever business the AD will have left for whatever they sell going forward.

[Gebbeth]

A lot of commercial practices are borderline fraudulent. The running joke of car dealers charging extra for "undercoat" or "rust protection" has been around for decades. I'm not sure anyone has called dealerships on it, but I suspect, dealers have changed their tune due to complaints.

The hard part to prove is that the AD "intentionally" or "recklessly" made a false statement in order to "intentionally" induce the plaintiff to spend more money at the AD, knowing that the Patek would never be available through them.

If the AD had some possibility of getting that Patek for the plaintiff, I think the plaintiff loses. Had the AD said to the plaintiff something like, "look, if you spend enough here, I can see if I can secure you the Patek, but no guarantees" then the plaintiff loses.

Then there is the sophistication of the buyer. If the plaintiff buys a lot of expensive watches, knows the watch market in general, and understands "how the game is played" then the plaintiff loses. He should have known better in other words. No words coming out of the AD could be fully trusted. I know the law may not technically look at it this way, but I know human nature will look at it this way. If this ever gets to a jury, I'm sure the jury will be like "Dude's rich and a fool. Screw him."

More than likely, this settles for some undisclosed amount. This is almost too petty to go the full 9 innings. Too many embarrassing facts may come out, and it's in no one's best interests for these things to come out.

[In-N-Out]

Is this the Palo Alto location? They are terrible. Went in asking for a simple 114060 ND sub back in 2018 (wasn’t that hard to get back then at other ADs, perhaps a short wait) and they told me to buy $50k worth of jewelry to get a chance to “maybe” get one within 12 months lol

[silvertip]

Originally Posted by AJMarcus

I’m not so sure the Plaintiff does not have a case here. If his attorney can depose witnesses such as Sales associates and managers who testify they advised him to purchase unwanted watches and jewelry to obtain the Patek of his dreams knowing full well there’s no way he would get one, he might just win his case. Willful Misrepresentation is fraud in many jurisdictions. Of course it has to be proven with evidence. But in civil actions the burden of proof is much less than in criminal proceedings. If it looks bad for Shreve certainly they would settle rather than lose to a jury. Either way the hit to their reputation could be significant. Let the games continue! Time will tell.

There might be documentary evidence such as text messages between a SA and the plaintiff. One poorly worded text or voicemail could sink Shreve.

This case is obviously different than the typical scenario of required purchase history for a desired piece due to Shreve knowing well in advance they were being dropped as an AD, and could never fulfill a request. They cannot claim a piece could theoretically become available if it was a literal impossibility.

Either way, Shreve is suffereing from both losing the Patek AD and the bad press from the lawsuit.

[samuel019]

Originally Posted by In-N-Out

Is this the Palo Alto location? They are terrible. Went in asking for a simple 114060 ND sub back in 2018 (wasn’t that hard to get back then at other ADs, perhaps a short wait) and they told me to buy $50k worth of jewelry to get a chance to “maybe” get one within 12 months lol

Wow. Could be that it’s systemic. Opinion of the guy that’s suing according to “someone” is that he’s an angry flipper.

Call me crazy but I don’t read the Plaintiff being a flipper. Maybe delusional. Maybe pissing in the wind but not a flipper. Oh well, what do I know

[GGGMT]

Originally Posted by samuel019

Wow. Could be that it’s systemic. Opinion of the guy that’s suing according to “someone” is that he’s an angry flipper.

Call me crazy but I don’t read the Plaintiff being a flipper. Maybe delusional. Maybe pissing in the wind but not a flipper. Oh well, what do I know

Flipping doesn’t work if you’re paying $200k to buy a $75k watch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[samuel019]

Originally Posted by gggmt

flipping doesn’t work if you’re paying $200k to buy a $75k watch.


Sent from my iphone using tapatalk

exactly!

[dlmocdm]

Originally Posted by In-N-Out

Is this the Palo Alto location? They are terrible. Went in asking for a simple 114060 ND sub back in 2018 (wasn’t that hard to get back then at other ADs, perhaps a short wait) and they told me to buy $50k worth of jewelry to get a chance to “maybe” get one within 12 months lol

I had the same experience. That is, when I asked about some Rolex watches, I was quickly redirected to very expensive jewelry. Why they would think I was interested in jewelry... I have no idea. I happily moved on

[mobster600]

I blame the dude who spent 200k. Never trust what people say they will do. When your spending that level of dough, you better know what your doing. Shit happends and unfortunately he learned that the hard way. Lesson learned, im sure he wont make the same mistake again

[codecow]

One time I went to Palo Alto and they were very nice and sold me everything I wanted!

[prnceofpersia23]

$5 says they'll settle for the difference between retail and market values.

[Rickkk]

Originally Posted by prnceofpersia23

$5 says they'll settle for the difference between retail and market values.

Or offer to refund the goods

[Apheaven]

Originally Posted by prnceofpersia23

$5 says they'll settle for the difference between retail and market values.

That is really all he could be ‘owed’…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[joa]

Originally Posted by mobster600

I blame the dude who spent 200k. Never trust what people say they will do. When your spending that level of dough, you better know what your doing. Shit happends and unfortunately he learned that the hard way. Lesson learned, im sure he wont make the same mistake again

he is making the same mistake again as we speak!

he signed up already to the next unrealistic promise: his lawyer's "we are going to win and get you some money". just delusional

[Wahlberg]

Originally Posted by Gebbeth

Too many embarrassing facts may come out, and it's in no one's best interests for these things to come out.

Only for the AD.

[amphr1]

This is just confirmation bias on why this AD is dead to me now.

https://www.watchpro.com/patek-phili...-he-was-duped/

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[WatchTimes]

Old news...

[MikeHoncho]

Curious.. can ADs even afford to fight these? It's not hard to imagine that the clientele in Silicon Valley could have more resources at their disposal than a brick and mortar store.

[spacebjorn]

Here's how I see it: it's only worth building a purchase history if you're:

a) Actually into the stuff and would wear it yourself.
b) Buying gifts for someone who'll truly appreciate them, and it's something you would've gotten anyway.
c) Flipping it (not endorsing this, but it's way to de-risk if you don't meet a or b) as it's spectacularly stupid to spend $$$ for a down payment for something you're not entirely sure you'll ever get.