I have a story for you..

[watchwatcher]

Originally Posted by AK797

If the jeweller sold you a stolen watch, you should be getting a full refund from him and pursuing that avenue, the watch should be going back via Rolex to the original owner or their Insurance.

Bingo.

[GVAZQUEZ]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I understand completely, and I am surprised we don’t hear about this more often.
You purchased a used Rolex from a jeweler. When the time came to send the watch to RSC for service, they checked it against their database and it came up as being reported stolen. The watch can’t be returned to you as it now belongs to the insurance company who paid out on a claim when it was stolen. The only way to get the watch back now is to negotiate and purchase from the insurance company who is now the rightful owner, and your jeweler is leaving you hanging with no offer to make it right.
I know this is how Rolex works, and there isn’t much you can do unless you make a claim against the jeweler and try to get back your money. The reality is that there are loads of people walking around with stolen Rolex watches and they have no idea, and never will, unless they send them to RSC.

This is a perfect summary. Just I’m debating if I invest more money taking these guys to court. Yes i have the original purchase receipt and the serial number matches the watch.

If the jeweler sold me the watch knowing or not he should of at least covered the costs or at least offered to refund the original purchase amount..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GVAZQUEZ]

Sorry if the story is confusing. Yes I meant to abbreviate attorney with “Attny” ...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GVAZQUEZ]

Originally Posted by directioneng

As I understand it???

The insurance Company has reimbursed the original insured owner and owns the watch if and when when it is recovered.

The jeweller should reimburse the OP and will be out of pocket unless they can they recover the funds from the ‘thief’ they bought it from.

As the OP has to now purchased the watch from the insurance company he just needs the jeweller to refund the original purchase price.

If all the ducks are lined up this should not be a problem.

Tried to but the jeweler refused to.. that’s why I came here to see if anyone had been though anything similar.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jsukey]

Crappy situation to be in for sure. The best news is that you still have your original sales receipt with the serial number. Regardless of whether or not your jeweler still has his paperwork...he can't refute the sales receipt in your possession that came from his store. From your original post it seems like you got the watch back. You were just disappointed that it was wrapped in bubble wrap and shipped in a cardboard box. I see no real harm there, as long as the watch is protected on all sides, and the band cannot collapse back onto itself and rub during shipping. I have no idea what your costs were for your attorney or the cost to get it back from the insurance company. Sounds like you're going to be stuck with small claims court though, and I would say that you have an overwhelming chance at winning.

[Seibei]

If you buy a stolen watch from someone, then the watch should go to the real owner and you should get your money back from the someone you purchased that watch from.

I don't really understand your story. If the watch was truly stolen you should never have got it back, serviced or not.

What has the insurance company got to do with anything?

Why was the watch not returned to the rightful owner?

FIY:
https://www.wikihow.com/Protect-Your...tolen-Property
3
Ask the seller for a refund. Once you return the goods to the police or to the rightful owner, you can ask the seller for a refund.[3] He or she should be happy to refund the money. Show the seller your copy of the police report.

You should not touch that watch with a 10 foot pole, it is not your watch. The seller is responsible and should refund you in full.

[Macnavara]

Ive only been awake for 5 minutes and This was the 1st thing i read...going back to bed to sleep it off

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Seibei

If you buy a stolen watch from someone, then the watch should go to the real owner and you should get your money back from the someone you purchased that watch from.

I don't really understand your story. If the watch was truly stolen you should never have got it back, serviced or not.

What has the insurance company got to do with anything?

Why was the watch not returned to the rightful owner?

FIY:
https://www.wikihow.com/Protect-Your...tolen-Property
3
Ask the seller for a refund. Once you return the goods to the police or to the rightful owner, you can ask the seller for a refund.[3] He or she should be happy to refund the money. Show the seller your copy of the police report.

You should not touch that watch with a 10 foot pole, it is not your watch. The seller is responsible and should refund you in full.

The watch does not belong to the rightful owner if the insurance company paid him out for the loss.
The watch belongs to the insurance company and the OP has now purchased it from them.

Yes, the seller now has a legal requirement to reimburse the OP for the purchase price.
The seller should then recover his payment from his source and hopefully the thief can be identified?

[Seibei]

Originally Posted by directioneng

The watch does not belong to the rightful owner if the insurance company paid him out for the loss.
The watch belongs to the insurance company and the OP has now purchased it from them.

Yes, the seller now has a legal requirement to reimburse the OP for the purchase price.
The seller should then recover his payment from his source and hopefully the thief can be identified?

Ah, thanks, the puzzle is coming together.

I think the whole point here is that the seller simply needs to reimburse the OP and then everyone can move on from there.

[Andad]

And that seems to be the issue.

[Giangos]

Original post was totally bewildering, thanks to those who interpreted it.

OP, I would 100% sue the jeweller. That is disgraceful conduct and no reasonable legal outcome would have you worse off. Get legal advice, this should be an easy case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GVAZQUEZ]

Thanks to everyone for your responses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Speedbird-1]

Who's on first?

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by JR16

This is so freakin confusing- is this for real? Why would RSC send a stolen watch to your insurance company and why would your insurance company sell you a stolen watch ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes this OP is confusing beyond my ability to follow. And this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the facts (of which we are clueless) are key. But as to your question, sometimes it works like this.

• Original owner has title.
  
  
• Watch is stollen.
  
  
• Thief acquires no title. Purchaser from thief acquires no title (even an innocent purchaser). Subsequent purchasers acquire no title (even innocent purchasers).
  
  
• Original owner make insurance claim. Insurance company pays claim. Insurance company now stands in the original owner's shoes (under the wording of the policy, the wording of the claim settlement documents or the law of the jurisdiction).
  
  
• Watch is recovered. Since the insurance company stands in the owners shoes, the watch goes to the insurance company.
  
  
• It does not go to the subsequent purchaser, because remember that he acquired no title.
  
  
• Original owner is notified and given the option to purchase the watch back from the insurance company. Original owner declines.
  
  
• Subsequent purchaser, who acquired no title, can try purchase the watch from the insurance company. In some jurisdictions, the original owner has a right to be paid his deductible or other losses as well. And it can become complicated. That is why lawyers sometimes get involved.
  

The hard lesson from this is, at least in many jurisdictions in the US, a thief cannot acquire or pass title with regard to personalty such as a watch. In other words, if you purchase a watch which was previously stollen, you purchase nothing, except maybe a lawsuit.

So, the old adage - buyer beware. Or as we say on this forum - buy the seller, not the watch.

Because if you buy the watch and it turns out to be stollen, you have purchased nothing. Except maybe a claim against the seller for breach of implied warranty of title. But the statute of limitations may have expired. Or you may have problems proving your case. Or the seller may not have the money. Or the seller may not cooperate.

But if you have bought the seller, you have purchased the seller's reputation. And the odds that the seller will make it right drastically improve.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by directioneng

The watch does not belong to the rightful owner if the insurance company paid him out for the loss.
The watch belongs to the insurance company and the OP has now purchased it from them.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by directioneng

Yes, the seller now has a legal requirement to reimburse the OP for the purchase price.

Yes. But application of this requirement varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, the Uniform Commercial Code has a statute of limitations for the implied warranty of title. The time time period varies from state to state. If you discover your watch is stollen after the statute expires you may be out of luck if the seller raises this defense and you cannot prove fraud or some other exception.

So, again. We are back to buying the seller, not the watch.

[Jim Smyth]

I would not have bought the watch back from the Insurance Company and would have sued the jeweler for damages.

[Sublovin]

I think Rolex needs to take a more responsible approach here. It would make sense for all involved, save for Rolex service, if they would make the stolen watch database available on a wide scale. It is absolutely ridiculous that such a thing exists, yet a jeweler or even individual buyer is unable to verify if a watch is stolen. Much of this could be avoided, and many owners could potentially get their watches back.
It seems they keep it confidential only as an incentive to make people send their watches in.

[LDN]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I understand completely, and I am surprised we don’t hear about this more often.
You purchased a used Rolex from a jeweler. When the time came to send the watch to RSC for service, they checked it against their database and it came up as being reported stolen. The watch can’t be returned to you as it now belongs to the insurance company who paid out on a claim when it was stolen. The only way to get the watch back now is to negotiate and purchase from the insurance company who is now the rightful owner, and your jeweler is leaving you hanging with no offer to make it right.
I know this is how Rolex works, and there isn’t much you can do unless you make a claim against the jeweler and try to get back your money. The reality is that there are loads of people walking around with stolen Rolex watches and they have no idea, and never will, unless they send them to RSC.

Thanks for the translation and to the op, sorry you had to go through this. Hope it will all work out!

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

I think Rolex needs to take a more responsible approach here. It would make sense for all involved, save for Rolex service, if they would make the stolen watch database available on a wide scale. It is absolutely ridiculous that such a thing exists, yet a jeweler or even individual buyer is unable to verify if a watch is stolen. Much of this could be avoided, and many owners could potentially get their watches back.
It seems they keep it confidential only as an incentive to make people send their watches in.

Understand the argument. But there a cons as well. At least three come to mind.

First, why is it Rolex's responsibility to foot the bill for maintaining a public data base? And if Rolex should do this, then so should the manufacturers of other products that are stollen. And they by and large do not. So, why should Rolex do it? It would seem to me that the better candidate would be insurance carriers. They have the most to gain by driving down the profitability of the less than honest market.

Second, I doubt all stolen watches are reported to Rolex. So the list would be incomplete and many would get a false sense of security and/or try to put Rolex on the hook for not having it in the data base.

Third, although I like to think the best of people, there are no doubt those who would find out their watch is stollen and quickly sell it or scrap it for parts instead of sending it to Rolex. And when that happens, the watch will not be returned to the true owner.

Again, I see your point, but it there are arguments on both sides.

[ricardo-sf]

punctuation matters

[Danny83]

What store sold you the watch?

[NachoNeal]

Originally Posted by ricardo-sf

punctuation matters

Especially if your mother's brother, Jack, likes horseback riding.

[Sublovin]

Originally Posted by mountainjogger

Understand the argument. But there a cons as well. At least three come to mind.

First, why is it Rolex's responsibility to foot the bill for maintaining a public data base? And if Rolex should do this, then so should the manufacturers of other products that are stollen. And they by and large do not. So, why should Rolex do it? It would seem to me that the better candidate would be insurance carriers. They have the most to gain by driving down the profitability of the less than honest market.

Second, I doubt all stolen watches are reported to Rolex. So the list would be incomplete and many would get a false sense of security and/or try to put Rolex on the hook for not having it in the data base.

Third, although I like to think the best of people, there are no doubt those who would find out their watch is stollen and quickly sell it or scrap it for parts instead of sending it to Rolex. And when that happens, the watch will not be returned to the true owner.

Again, I see your point, but it there are arguments on both sides.

Respectfully, on the first two points, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Rolex already maintains this database....this is how the OP had his watch taken to begin with, they just don’t share it. There would be no added expense by sharing on a broader scale, such as with their AD’s.
Also, I am not for a second implying that it would be a catch all....but it’s much better than what is out there now.
It could potentially help the integrity of the brand and ultimately reduce theft of Rolex if stolen watches became less marketable due to availability of this database.

[rambo99]

i think the op means he paid 8k to buy back his watch which was in the insurance company's custody. am i right?

[JebM]

Since you bought the watch from a jewelry store who is in the business of selling these types of things you should have some recourse (I would hope)... not trying to layer* wouldn't even know how to begin.. just spitballing.

[Freespeach]

Is there a statute of limitations on the insurance company's right to claim the watch or even the original owner. If it has been say 5 years why can the OP just keep the stolen watch?

[PatronMTL]

tough read.... my head hurts. regardless, hope it turns out well

[Freespeach]

Moral of the story...if you do not buy new from an AD you are at risk...even from a trusted seller. Therefore, if you buy used or pre owned, only service through a trusted independent.

Note: Sea Dweller, Sky Dweller, and Daytona parts can only be sourced from an RSC so no Indy can guarantee only new Rolex original parts are used in servicing these models. This information came from a plaque AD that can service all Rolex watches the same as the RSC with only those models as exceptions. Per the AD any AD attempting to perform in house service on those models will lose the right to sell Rolex watches if caught by Rolex.
For these models only buy new from an AD.

Do not shoot the messenger.

[mountainjogger]

Originally Posted by Sublovin

Respectfully, on the first two points, I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. Rolex already maintains this database....this is how the OP had his watch taken to begin with, they just don’t share it. There would be no added expense by sharing on a broader scale, such as with their AD’s.
Also, I am not for a second implying that it would be a catch all....but it’s much better than what is out there now.
It could potentially help the integrity of the brand and ultimately reduce theft of Rolex if stolen watches became less marketable due to availability of this database.

Good points. But there would be additional costs to making it public, just like any other addition to a website.

[Speedbird-1]

Originally Posted by ricardo-sf

punctuation matters

Punctuation, matters.

Yes. It does!