stolen watch at rsc

[natosub]

Assuming all was on the up and up, I feel terrible for the poor guy who just bought the watch and now has to sort through all of this.

[pd999]

Originally Posted by TickTockChuck

PS: I wouldn't hand over my watch to anyone but the local authorities and would require a receipt in case the whole thing was a mistake.

+1. Does any RSC have the legal authority to confiscate anything? How do we know that the RSC handed the watch to the Police? And will they really go to the trouble of finding the insurance company?

[AK797]

I saw a case of this on a UK forum where a member bought a watch from a member who bought from another in another country, who bought from another and it turned out to have been stolen, and it was only now coming to light with RSC. This was a real mess in establishing who should refund who.

[rootbeer7]

It is a minefield. The poor guy had only bought it the day before. The company is easy to find and run an eBay shop. I'm sure they'll do the right thing and refund his money with the proof from Rolex. No matter what the nuances of the law, it's great to know that you have a chance of seeing a stolen watch again.

[gossbeau]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

It is a minefield. The poor guy had only bought it the day before. The company is easy to find and run an eBay shop. I'm sure they'll do the right thing and refund his money with the proof from Rolex. No matter what the nuances of the law, it's great to know that you have a chance of seeing a stolen watch again.

I hope so too

[Yellowduck1]

I have read both threads.

With the regard the guy who had his watch 'confiscated' by Rolex as stolen and then subsequently advised, after causing loads of work, that they had got it wrong...

Rolex did not offer a free service to compensate.....

There is one simple answer.....sue them.... It is very simple to take a Company to court using moneyclaim online, and cost £20-£50 max on small claims. I would add up how many hours you have spent on this on calls and emails, multiply by an hourly rate of what you normally earn, add on any costs incurred, and a small amount for 'compensation' and issue a summons.

Firstly, as a Company, they have to attend YOUR local court to defend, so very likely they will not even bother. On average it will cost a company £1500 - £2000 to defend a claim, so, it will come as no surprise, they normally just pay any claims less than a grand or so.

If you lose, you only lose the amount you paid to instigate the claim. I never mess around now. I give one opportunity for a Company to sort things and if they don't I sue them.

Life is too short to mess around trying to 'negotiate'.

[bondtoys]

It's bee repeated here on and on!

ROLEX DOES NOT CONFISCATE WATCHES!!!

In the figured case, Rolex becomes aware of 2 disputing claims of ownership:

The guy at the counter who says that it's his watch and
someone else in their database who says that this watch was stolen from him and that he's still the rightful owner.

Rolex will not hand over the watch to anyone but the authorities at request before the ownership is doubtfully determined. It could be necessary to clear that at court.

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

In many jurisdictions (parts of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain, Mexico) there is the market overt rule (or an equivalent) where if stolen goods are transferred to a dealer and then sold by the merchant dealer to a bona fide purchaser, the purchaser's rights prevail over the original owner's under the market overt rule.

If anyone wants to deepen their understanding and has the courage to go through a (mostly) legal text on the issue i suggest you read Schwaztz, A., Rethinking the Laws of Good Faith Purchase, 2011, Yale Law School, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 111:1132.

It is a good (very good actually) comparative analysis and philosophical approach on the matter for all interested in deepening their understanding of what is meant by good faith purchase and how legislatures have dealt with the issue.

In a nutshell the laws about good faith purchase of stolen goods are not universal; rather they vary from country to country. Also it is not a black or white issue there are conflicting interests at stake and striking a balance is not as easy as some may rush to think.

This is exacerbated in the light of transnational transactions where it hard to determine which jurisdiction applies and whose courts have jurisdiction over the issue.

Not sure where you have this "knowledge" from but you could not be any wronger.

My Breguet has been stolen some years ago and someone bought it from a dealer, who's bought it from a dealer and so on.

When I became aware of the current owner - I've contacted him and demanded my watch back. He demanded the money, which I have refused.
I've filed an emergency court order to present at his home (day before Christmas). The house was searched, the watch not found, I've sued him for compensation.

Days later, I've received my watch back and the court and advocate fees.
It happened in Germany and will happen the same way in most of the other countries - including Canada, France, Israel etc.

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by Gaijin

Wow. Painful.

How did your situation turn out? Did you get your Daytona back from the pawn shop?

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by Sweetswisssteel

Stupid to hand it over. Basically Rolex stole his watch

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using Tapatalk

nonsense!

Hope that you never get robbed - it'll certianly change your pov.

This watch has been stolen from the rightful owner and is returned to the rightful owner.

[3581512]

Are you saying that this story and the linked story are false, and Rolex did not keep the watches that were in their stolen watch database?

Originally Posted by bondtoys

It's bee repeated here on and on!

ROLEX DOES NOT CONFISCATE WATCHES!!!

[yannis]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

In many jurisdictions (parts of Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Spain, Mexico) there is the market overt rule (or an equivalent) where if stolen goods are transferred to a dealer and then sold by the merchant dealer to a bona fide purchaser, the purchaser's rights prevail over the original owner's under the market overt rule.

If anyone wants to deepen their understanding and has the courage to go through a (mostly) legal text on the issue i suggest you read Schwaztz, A., Rethinking the Laws of Good Faith Purchase, 2011, Yale Law School, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 111:1132.

It is a good (very good actually) comparative analysis and philosophical approach on the matter for all interested in deepening their understanding of what is meant by good faith purchase and how legislatures have dealt with the issue.

In a nutshell the laws about good faith purchase of stolen goods are not universal; rather they vary from country to country. Also it is not a black or white issue there are conflicting interests at stake and striking a balance is not as easy as some may rush to think.

This is exacerbated in the light of transnational transactions where it hard to determine which jurisdiction applies and whose courts have jurisdiction over the issue.

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Not sure where you have this "knowledge" from but you could not be any wronger.

My Breguet has been stolen some years ago and someone bought it from a dealer, who's bought it from a dealer and so on.

When I became aware of the current owner - I've contacted him and demanded my watch back. He demanded the money, which I have refused.
I've filed an emergency court order to present at his home (day before Christmas). The house was searched, the watch not found, I've sued him for compensation.

Days later, I've received my watch back and the court and advocate fees.
It happened in Germany and will happen the same way in most of the other countries - including Canada, France, Israel etc.

Hello there,

I have already quoted my source which is on my original post. So it is not "knowldedge" as you mean it in a degrading manner it is the by-product of legal research of a person i have quoted (Yale Law School by the way).

All these jurisdictions i have mentioned have a market overt or a derivative notion related to a bona fide purchaser in place (Canada, in Quebec only according to the article i think). Read my source (if you still doubt) it is an extensive but great article

It is available via the web also, so no need to subscribe to Columbia Law Review to study the article.

In Germany a bona fide purchaser is protected under Article 929 of German Civil Code in conjunction with Article 932. The foundations lie in Article 1006 of the German Civil Code. Under Article 933 -934 of the German Civil Code if the acquirer is in good faith up to delivery he is protected. That is the German Civil Code not some random yannis7777 saying so.

So let us assume that if in your case the acquirer was proven not to be in good faith as per Art. 933-934 for example, the item is yours. However, the protection still exists in germany, Italy, France etc. contrary to your mistaken belief. My sources are at your disposal.

If again in doubt, read that Thomas: Rahmatian, A., A Comparison of German Moveable Property Law and English Personal Property Law (source: http://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=340). He offers a great explanation on the matter.

The article i quoted defines exactly the extent of the protection offered under German law. And yes German law does offer protection to the innocent bona fide purchaser. Your case was an individual case with its individual particulars that the court asserted its rule over. It does not mean that a true bona fide buyer would not be entitled possession on another case though. It is German law.

I hope i have been of service.

[Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Rolex addict

How did your situation turn out? Did you get your Daytona back from the pawn shop?

Yes. All i the very long thread here articulating every painful detail.

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by 3581512

Are you saying that this story and the linked story are false, and Rolex did not keep the watches that were in their stolen watch database?

I don't doubt the story. but Rolex does not confiscate anything.
They just refuse to return the watch when they are aware that more than 1 party claim ownership of a certain watch.

In doubt, they hand over the watch to the authorities who have the right to seize things.

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

....

Sorry you are misinformed.

The buyer of "my" watch was buying in good faith from a dealer. No doubt about it
I did not have to prove that he was acting not in good faith - I was still the owner and you can't obtain legal possession of stolen goods in most of the western countries.

So the german court saw it exactly the opposite like what you say.

As others said before "good faith" protects you from prosecution*, but you still lose the stolen item to the rightful owner.

* buying not in good faith makes you object of prosecution for dealing with stolen goods.

[yannis]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Sorry you are misinformed.

The buyer of "my" watch was buying in good faith from a dealer. No doubt about it
I did not have to prove that he was acting not in good faith - I was still the owner and you can't obtain legal onership of stolen goods in most of the western countries.

So the german court saw it exactly the opposite like what you say.

As others said before "good faith" protects you from prosecution*, but you still lose the stolen item to the rightful owner.

* buying not in good faith makes you object of prosecution for dealing with stolen goods.

I am making a contribution to the forum and you are raising a legal argument (perfectly acceptable), but you do it in a kind of offending manner by doubting my sources and then when i quote the German Civil Code and further published scientific articles you tell me i am misinformed. Come on you can do better than this man

On a serious note you are actually misinforming people here (by making statements such as: It happened in Germany and will happen the same way in most of the other countries - including Canada, France, Israel etc.); if you do not know the law i suggest you do not try to play clever. I say this in a friendly tone. Bad legal advice is much worse than no advice at all.

[bondtoys]

just waiting for some legal guys to chime in and give their point of view.

I know pretty well how law works here on the topic and that's exactly how a german court decided. So I still say, that you are totally wrong.

[yannis]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

just waiting for some legal guys to chime in and give their point of view.

I know pretty well how law works here on the topic and that's exactly how a german court decided. So I still say, that you are totally wrong.

FYI: I have quoted Dr Andreas Rahmatian above with a link to his published work on the matter.

[bondtoys]

Tbh, I that's a long and complex article.
I have other things to do to crawl thru that legal stuff, I know enough on the topic and how it's handeled in reality.

That may give you some useful informations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet

"Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet" rule, which means "one cannot transfer more rights than he has"

"The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner".

[rootbeer7]

Whatever the opinions, the poor chap had his watch taken as it was on a stolen list.

[yannis]

Originally Posted by rootbeer7

Whatever the opinions, the poor chap had his watch taken as it was on a stolen list.

I agree with you man. English and US law is a bit tougher with the bona fide purchaser with the Nemo dat quod non habet (well its equivalents) principles. It is a shame as the innocent buyer should be protected also but that is just my opinion and not a law in the US or UK.

By the way up to 1994-1995 UK law had a market overt principle incorporated in the Sale of Goods Act of 1979. That was abolished with its amendment in 1994-1995.

[yannis]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

Tbh, I that's a long and complex article.
I have other things to do to crawl thru that legal stuff, I know enough on the topic and how it's handeled in reality.

That may give you some useful informations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet

"Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet" rule, which means "one cannot transfer more rights than he has"

"The rule usually stays valid even if the purchaser does not know that the seller has no right to claim ownership of the object of the transaction (a bona fide purchaser); however, in many cases, more than one innocent party is involved, making judgment difficult for courts and leading to numerous exceptions to the general rule that aim to give a degree of protection to bona fide purchasers and original owners. The possession of the good of title will be with the original owner".

I have answered that above and again FYI it does not apply to Germany. It applies to the US and UK

Also, If you cared to properly read my original post you would see that i nowhere stated the case was so for the UK or US...

[Abdullah71601]

Does Rolex update it's database for recovered watches? If a watch is recovered and returned to it's rightful owner (person or insurance company) and resold, who updates Rolex (proprietary) files to indicate that the stolen report is no longer valid?

If Rolex were to interfere with me in my hypothetical, could I sue them to recover my costs for their action on their invalid proprietary information.

[ecdc]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

I have answered that above and again FYI it does not apply to Germany. It applies to the US and UK

Also, If you cared to properly read my original post you would see that i nowhere stated the case was so for the UK or US...

The rule in the US is generally that a person who unknowingly buys stolen property gets full + complete title to it. See, e.g., UCC Article 2, Section 2-403. (Emphasis added by me.) Note that states may have different laws, but if you had to place your bets on the most common outcome, this would be it.

§ 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting".
(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though

(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.

[bondtoys]

Originally Posted by yannis7777

I have answered that above and again FYI it does not apply to Germany. It applies to the US and UK

Also, If you cared to properly read my original post you would see that i nowhere stated the case was so for the UK or US...

It's also applicable for european law.
I just chose the link because it's in english ;)

[yannis]

Originally Posted by ecdc

The rule in the US is generally that a person who unknowingly buys stolen property gets full + complete title to it. See, e.g., UCC Article 2, Section 2-403. (Emphasis added by me.) Note that states may have different laws, but if you had to place your bets on the most common outcome, this would be it.

§ 2-403. Power to Transfer; Good Faith Purchase of Goods; "Entrusting".
(1) A purchaser of goods acquires all title which his transferor had or had power to transfer except that a purchaser of a limited interest acquires rights only to the extent of the interest purchased. A person with voidable title has power to transfer a good title to a good faith purchaser for value. When goods have been delivered under a transaction of purchase the purchaser has such power even though

(a) the transferor was deceived as to the identity of the purchaser, or
(b) the delivery was in exchange for a check which is later dishonored, or
(c) it was agreed that the transaction was to be a "cash sale", or
(d) the delivery was procured through fraud punishable as larcenous under the criminal law.

Thanks for the contribution man.

I believe what you quote has to do with entrustment of goods (voluntarily handling a good to the person who then sells it to the bona fide purchaser) (i am not quite sure i have not explored US law in depth). Read this for more info: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/...44&context=clr

[yannis]

Originally Posted by bondtoys

It's also applicable for european law.
I just chose the link because it's in english ;)

...as aforesaid (backed by evidence and sources) there are European jurisdictions such as Germany that a bona fide purchaser is validly protected under certain circumstances (Articles 929, 930, 932 etc, 1006 German Civil Code (BGB)) (i will hold a reservation as to whether the protection extends to stolen goods in the Germany example as you state that the court forced the person who received your stolen Breguet - although he was in good faith - to return which i have no reason to doubt so we may both be right on different grounds).
In France for example protection extends to stolen goods and you may only recover your stolen or lost good if you pay the bona fide buyer the amount he paid to the vendor or auction (2277 French Civil Code).

[Rolex addict]

And stories like this are the reason we get so many threads "Do I buy from an AD or Grey dealer?" It's also why I have insurance on my watches. I'll just get a new one and let the insurance company deal with the hassle. Personally, I'm glad Rolex confiscates any watch that's been reported stolen. Yes, there will be innocent people that get burned, but it's stolen property.

[Rolex addict]

Originally Posted by Gaijin

Yes. All i the very long thread here articulating every painful detail.

Sorry it was such a pain, but glad you got it back.