Shocked and disgusted with my Dealer

[watchf]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

To be honest, if someone was trying to buy a third Daytona off me in the space of a year, it would set alarm bells ringing that they were dealing. The only difference is that I wouldn't take a deposit

Why would it matter though? The AD sells to the customer at the price the AD deem acceptable, what happens to the watch after that has nothing to do with the AD at all so why would it affect the AD's dealer status with Rolex?

[kareemthedream33]

Originally Posted by watchf

Why would it matter though? The AD sells to the customer at the price the AD deem acceptable, what happens to the watch after that has nothing to do with the AD at all so why would it affect the AD's dealer status with Rolex?

X2. If he's paying the asking price, what does it matter what happens after? If he can sell them at a profit then good for him, there's nothing wrong with that.

[chicfarmer1]

Originally Posted by watchf

Why would it matter though? The AD sells to the customer at the price the AD deem acceptable, what happens to the watch after that has nothing to do with the AD at all so why would it affect the AD's dealer status with Rolex?

It has a lot to do with Rolex as a brand. Some companies are very active about the issue of a secondary market for new products and do what they can to limit that. I know of companies that permanently ban individuals they detect as resellers. Maybe Rolex is becoming more proactive about this matter now than in the past. (I'm not arguing that it's right, just stating what I know to be the business's point of view.)

[mcurtisal]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

Hi Suzy,

Steel Daytonas are a bit of a sticky subject - as there are only two combinations available (white and black dial), I would be questioning why the same customer would be after a third. It would be the kind of thing that could cause issues with Rolex, especially at a time when they're looking to reduce ADs. You have to play by their rules right now, losing dealer status is too big a risk, Rolex can be the lifeblood of a store

Chris

Just curious Chris - if I'm paying full retail (10.4 at the time), why should Rolex care that the dealer sold 3 to an individual. I understand putting themselves at risk if they gave me a discount, but they didn't. These are not scarce or hard to find. When I bought the first one, the salesmand asked "what color would you like black or white?". I bought the white. Called them again about 6 weeks later and they still had the black so I bought that one. They were just sitting there waiting for someone to pay full sticker.

[R.G]

Thats disgusting. In the UK we have an office of fair trading that you can complain to. I wonder if there is an equivalent in the US.

That really is awful.

[ec51]

Originally Posted by kareemthedream33

If the AD said "we are selling you this watch and we agree to this payment plan" then it is a sale. Who cares what Rolex says, it's a verbal agreement and it's been breached unless both sides agree to it, and that obviously isn't the case here. It really depends on how it went down, but it sounds to me like the AD made him believe it was a sale and then changed his mind.

If the seller has a problem with the buyer then he has make that decision before he shakes his hand and accepts thousands of dollars from him.

This is actually inaccurate. I am not sure of the jurisdiction at question here, but most likely the statute of frauds would apply.

The statute of frauds dictates that a contract for the sale of goods over $500 is required to be in writing. So any 'verbal' contract here, is voidable.

[gqllc]

Originally Posted by ec51

This is actually inaccurate. I am not sure of the jurisdiction at question here, but most likely the statute of frauds would apply.

The statute of frauds dictates that a contract for the sale of goods over $500 is required to be in writing. So any 'verbal' contract here, is voidable.

The OP must have some type of documentation in writing. He left a deposit of 2K..I can't imagine he did not walk out with a receipt of some kind. I would have hoped the receipt was for the purchase of said watch??

[SaddleSC]

Originally Posted by ec51

This is actually inaccurate. I am not sure of the jurisdiction at question here, but most likely the statute of frauds would apply.

The statute of frauds dictates that a contract for the sale of goods over $500 is required to be in writing. So any 'verbal' contract here, is voidable.

X100 finally someone that is actually familiar with the law and not merely espousing their somewhat amorphous conceptions of "right and wrong."

If the Statute of Frauds is found to apply, then a verbal agreement in this situation would likely mean nothing. The entire issue boils down to what (if anything) was reduced to writing.

In any event, the cost of pursuing the issue (with a legal remedy) is far greater than just finding another Daytona and moving on with your life. Any mental energy you expend trying to sully the ADs reputation would be better spent elsewhere. Vote with your wallet...enjoy your new watch.

[rolexsweep]

thats seriously a joke.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by watchf

Why would it matter though? The AD sells to the customer at the price the AD deem acceptable, what happens to the watch after that has nothing to do with the AD at all so why would it affect the AD's dealer status with Rolex?

Originally Posted by kareemthedream33

X2. If he's paying the asking price, what does it matter what happens after? If he can sell them at a profit then good for him, there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally Posted by mcurtisal

Just curious Chris - if I'm paying full retail (10.4 at the time), why should Rolex care that the dealer sold 3 to an individual. I understand putting themselves at risk if they gave me a discount, but they didn't. These are not scarce or hard to find. When I bought the first one, the salesmand asked "what color would you like black or white?". I bought the white. Called them again about 6 weeks later and they still had the black so I bought that one. They were just sitting there waiting for someone to pay full sticker.

The AD wouldn't want to get a reputation for selling to dealers - unfortunately it is an ADs problem what happens to the watch after they sell it, Rolex would take a very dim view if that was the case. I remember we had a difficult phone call from Rolex when a customer put their Daytona on eBay within a few hours of buying it. Essentially, Rolex wants Daytonas to go to customers, not dealers, and, as I pointed out, with them reducing the number of ADs worldwide, we've got to be on our best behaviour. I would prefer to look like a bit of a fool and return a customer's deposit than inadvertently sell to a dealer, and potentially get my workplace in a lot of hot water

[Mr. K]

Originally Posted by Tools

If you have a written agreement with the terms spelled out, and you have adhered to your part; the Dealer may be open to breach of that contract..

Check your details..

agreed!

[KingJames]

Originally Posted by poppydog

My rule of thumb is that I work hard to earn my money and there's no way I'm going to work hard to spend it. If a retailer doesn't make it easy I walk away. Hope you reach a satisfactory resolution.

Well said...I like that thought process

[Bob Gott]

Take your business elsewhere....there's a recession on in case they had not noticed. You are a rare commodity in that you buy so many fine watches...don't do business with them ever again.

[Welshwatchman]

Only one time did I ever place a deposit on a watch, the SS GMTc days after it was announced.

I paid a £1,000 deposit.

I've just taken a critical look at the paperwork (still have it, saddo) and it is carefully enough worded to protect (by omission rather than inclusion) the dealer in the event of a price increase or lack of supply availability.

Basically, it's just a receipt for £1,000.

Check your paperwork. If it's as vague as mine was then it's time for put the whole matter behind you.

[KarlFr]

terrible customer service, what a clown

[lortap]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

X100 finally someone that is actually familiar with the law and not merely espousing their somewhat amorphous conceptions of "right and wrong."

If the Statute of Frauds is found to apply, then a verbal agreement in this situation would likely mean nothing. The entire issue boils down to what (if anything) was reduced to writing.

In any event, the cost of pursuing the issue (with a legal remedy) is far greater than just finding another Daytona and moving on with your life. Any mental energy you expend trying to sully the ADs reputation would be better spent elsewhere. Vote with your wallet...enjoy your new watch.

So as a matter of interpretation what is a contract, meaning how specific does it need to get in this case? Seems like if "in writing" is the requirement, could one not argue the cash down (receipt) is your "in writing" that your buying the watch. Some law and case law looks at "substantial step" and I would bet putting 2k down should apply for that requirement

[BOA]

In contract law, the down payment is "consideration." Not sure if it's the same in layaway, but in buying a house, there's a specific closing date, and if you balk, you lose the "consideration." Here, if the OP had walked away, he'd have expected, and gotten, his money back, so how could it be the same?

[ec51]

Originally Posted by SaddleSC

X100 finally someone that is actually familiar with the law and not merely espousing their somewhat amorphous conceptions of "right and wrong."

If the Statute of Frauds is found to apply, then a verbal agreement in this situation would likely mean nothing. The entire issue boils down to what (if anything) was reduced to writing.

In any event, the cost of pursuing the issue (with a legal remedy) is far greater than just finding another Daytona and moving on with your life. Any mental energy you expend trying to sully the ADs reputation would be better spent elsewhere. Vote with your wallet...enjoy your new watch.

+1 Thank you.

I do not want to get into legal debate since you could spend hours just speaking about contract formation alone. Although I will say this, a basic contract requires four things; an offer, terms, acceptance, and consideration. That is contracts 101 - numerous types of other defenses, requirements, etc. come into play when the details surrounding the 'contract' change.

Here, the Statute of Frauds would most likely apply (therefore requiring a written agreement). The agreement would fall under the SOF because of the Uniform Commercial Code - Article 2 (sales). There are numerous requirements under the UCC ARticle 2 and I'd rather not bore anyone. But that is where you should look if you wanted to pursue it legally.

Although, as already mentioned - the cost of pursuing it legally would not make sense. It would be better to move on and deal with another AD.

Hope everything works out.

[Omega 1120]

That AD is lame.

Tell the AD you'll bring in your 2 watches to prove your not selling em....just to see what he/she says.

I'm pretty sure they'll say "no I'm sorry, its our policy, blah, blah, blah.....

[ec51]

Originally Posted by lortap

So as a matter of interpretation what is a contract, meaning how specific does it need to get in this case? Seems like if "in writing" is the requirement, could one not argue the cash down (receipt) is your "in writing" that your buying the watch. Some law and case law looks at "substantial step" and I would bet putting 2k down should apply for that requirement

The UCC - Article 2 would dictate what is required.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-201

[subtona]

Originally Posted by Txr

Tell those clowns to have your watch ready for pickup or else to see you in court.

And what kind of bullshit is the "you can only buy 2 watchs" ?

yeah! but they'll probably call your bluff?

Has the OP offered any document of layaway to base a more complete response on?

I suspect OP will not offer his AD, as he does sometimes sell here and chooses not to reveal the location.

[lortap]

Originally Posted by ec51

The UCC - Article 2 would dictate what is required.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-201

Good info, BTW I have seen much weaker arguments than what this one would/could be.

[wdalew5]

Since when was it a crime to buy more than 3 rolexs in one year?Screw em, take your buisness else where I would have been in jail years ago if that was the case. Thank god we live in a capitaist society, I can pick what and where to spend my money..

[TSW]

Originally Posted by Numismatist

Save your money, and buy it here...

Agree 100%

[B. Doggy]

major suckage.

[mcurtisal]

After some heated discussions, the dealer did the right thing and honored the purchase. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and advice. I learned a valuable lesson for sure - just buy it outright and forget about "holding" a purchase. Cheers!!

[Sixxgrand1]

Originally Posted by mcurtisal

After some heated discussions, the dealer did the right thing and honored the purchase. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and advice. I learned a valuable lesson for sure - just buy it outright and forget about "holding" a purchase. Cheers!!

Glad you got your Rolex. And remember - that is what banks are for!

[Otto]

Originally Posted by mcurtisal

After some heated discussions, the dealer did the right thing and honored the purchase. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and advice. I learned a valuable lesson for sure - just buy it outright and forget about "holding" a purchase. Cheers!!

Good. I'm an attorney and maybe (I don't know) you had some rights in this matter; but at the bottom line, this was a matter of good faith and integrity on the part of a dealer.

[rr-nyc]

Originally Posted by Wisconsin Proud

Putting money down to hold a watch is not a buying contract.

I've run into this before. Rolex requires the "sale" to be executed and delivery taken before the price increase to get the previuos lower price.

In fact, a coupl eyears ago I inquired about a Rolex that was not in stock. The AD (who is very cool) said the watch must be in the store and delivered on the date that the price is lower to get that price.

This is to keep people from ordering a Daytona several months before the increase and getting the lower price if it comes in a year later during a period when the price went up.

Bottomline, you should have made the sale final before the increase.

WIKI:

Layaway is a way to purchase an item without paying the entire cost at once. However, rather than taking the item home and then repaying the debt on a regular schedule, as in most installment plans or hire purchases, the layaway customer does not receive the item until it is completely paid for. There is sometimes a fee associated, since the seller must "lay" the item "away" in storage until the payments are completed. If the transaction is not completed, the item is returned to stock and the customer's money is returned.

This last line in bold clearly indicates layaway is not an actual purchase until it is paid in full and taken delivery of.

Are you confusing a "sale" and a lay-a-way agreement? I don't think the OP stated that the transaction was completed thus resulting in a sale. The seller is backing out of the transaction which, in many states, can be considered a contract of sale and puts the seller in breach. There are no laws that protect a buyer or seller on lay-a-ways so everything depends on what is stated in the terms. If the agreed upon sales price is stated in the terms, the store is obligated to sell it at that price as long as the rest of the agreement is intact. Unfortunately, it would probably cost the OP more in legal fees than its worth to prove the point.

Regardless, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

[subtona]

Originally Posted by mcurtisal

After some heated discussions, the dealer did the right thing and honored the purchase. Thanks for everyone's thoughts and advice. I learned a valuable lesson for sure - just buy it outright and forget about "holding" a purchase. Cheers!!

so how much do you want for it?
are the stickers still on???