Rolex purchased from reputable shop reported stolen by Rolex

[inadeje]

You came out unscathed OP.

[csaltphoto]

Originally Posted by iangbris

Let’s not be naive, we all pay for the loss, that’s how it works. Luxury goods get stolen, insurers pay out, our premiums go up.

The loss is to my son who has had his 21st birthday present taken off him. That is the only loss that interests me.

I have many options that I will explore but it is clear that some people on here have an opinion on what making it right is, that differs from mine. I’m fine with that and I’m not here to argue over any of it.

This will be resolved one way or another and I’ll update the thread when it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the only people who don't pay for the watch is the criminal who stole it. They rarely do any prison time for theft. No fine and no paying back victims. They get to keep the money. The victims and the rest of us pay for the criminals behavior. We pay for everything.

[Cesarmsi]

Take the refund……..

[Harry-57]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

I still think the store is on the hook here.

Yes they are and they have offered to do the right thing unconditionally.

Third party databases are only as good as the compilers, who do not have any information from Rolex to cross check against because Rolex don't disclose such information until a stolen watch ends up in the hands of a RSC.

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

Why? Do they have legal responsibility? Moral responsibility to be out even more than they received? They are giving him his money back. Even though it’s been years. I’m assuming the shop didn’t know it was buying stolen goods, since there isn’t a good way to check, just like I’m assuming the OP didn’t know he was buying stolen goods even though it was a Rolex with no paperwork.

There’s some degree of risk in buying a used Rolex. The only way to avoid it is to buy from an AD. I’m sorry if the OP didn’t understand that. But it’s fact.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...t-aKJYx8n5KiSl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bluestreak]

Originally Posted by iangbris

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...t-aKJYx8n5KiSl


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing in that document indicates that the store owes you anything more than what they gave you. It limits liability to six years, and it states they owe you a refund, not the current market value of the item. They could reasonably say that a replacement of a vintage watch isn’t feasible.

Look, it sucks. I’m sorry you bought a stolen watch. But the shop has done right by you.

[BlackandBlue80]

Why not discuss with the selling dealer that you want a replacement watch? They will likely say they can’t do that, so you could then politely ask which other watches they are selling are stolen. You could also reach out via social media or pitch your story to the news media. Not that you want to destroy the selling dealer, but they did sell a stolen watch. The market for stolen watches would be smaller if dealers weren’t selling stolen goods. I feel for you because you truly had a loss. The 2016 money is worth half of what it would be today, you lost out on using that money in investments, and you can’t buy your son anything close to what you had because the prices are so much higher today. I would personally be very upset and find getting my money back to be unreasonable. The selling dealer gets off unscathed for selling stolen goods which is ridiculous.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by 7enderbender

I disagree with all who are saying that this is a “fair” offer. It’s not. The shop has a responsibility here. They sold stolen goods. They should be liable for more than just the sales price from years ago.

Responsibility for what. Legally all that is owed is the purchase price of the watch, unless there was some written contract providing for some other remedies.

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by bluestreak

Nothing in that document indicates that the store owes you anything more than what they gave you. It limits liability to six years, and it states they owe you a refund, not the current market value of the item. They could reasonably say that a replacement of a vintage watch isn’t feasible.

Look, it sucks. I’m sorry you bought a stolen watch. But the shop has done right by you.

I read it differently

“If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.”

Replacement is feasible as they have the same model for sale currently and are sellers of modern and vintage Rolex. I will challenge the 6 year limitation as I did not know that the item was not as described until now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[NigeG]

Originally Posted by BlackandBlue80

The 2016 money is worth half of what it would be today, you lost out on using that money in investments.

Really?

Originally Posted by iangbris

I read it differently

“If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.”

Replacement is feasible as they have the same model for sale currently and are sellers of modern and vintage Rolex. I will challenge the 6 year limitation as I did not know that the item was not as described until now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I very much doubt they’ll do that under the Consumer Rights act. But good luck trying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[watchlover24]

Originally Posted by iangbris

I read it differently

“If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.”

Replacement is feasible as they have the same model for sale currently and are sellers of modern and vintage Rolex. I will challenge the 6 year limitation as I did not know that the item was not as described until now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

A repair or replacement is not required if either of those remedies is disproportionate compared to a refund (e.g., due to the cost). The article you yourself posted states that. Having said that, I suppose that you could ordinarily fight over that determination in court if that's somehow a good use of your time and resources, even after considering that you're not getting your son's treasured watch back.

In your case, though, the above is a moot point because the statutory right that was breached here is that the seller should have had the right to transfer title to the watch to you in connection with the sale. Because the seller did not have that right, your remedy is to obtain a refund (essentially undoing the transaction).

That stands in contrast to, for example, a breach of the statutory right to receive a product of satisfactory quality. In that case, seeking a replacement product as a remedy is both legally possible and makes sense.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by iangbris

I read it differently

“If you don't want a refund and still want your product repaired or replaced, you have the right to request that the retailer makes further attempts at a repair or replacement.”

Replacement is feasible as they have the same model for sale currently and are sellers of modern and vintage Rolex. I will challenge the 6 year limitation as I did not know that the item was not as described until now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"just like goods, digital content must be:

of satisfactory quality
fit for a particular purpose
as described by the seller"

I think this statute has no application to your situation. The watch met all the quality standards required under the law. The problem here was not a defect or lack of quality/fitness for a particular purpose but "stolen property" which is not mentioned or covered here.

[garyk]

Be thankful you were not sold a bogus watch with non OEM parts OP.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

"just like goods, digital content must be:

of satisfactory quality
fit for a particular purpose
as described by the seller"

I think this statute has no application to your situation. The watch met all the quality standards required under the law. The problem here was not a defect or lack of quality/fitness for a particular purpose but "stolen property" which is not mentioned or covered here.

Yeah, for some reason many lay persons think they can skip the pros (lawyers) and interpret statutes, regs, case precedents etc themselves. I don’t see as many people attempt their own gall bladder surgery or appendectomies, but ai guess when it is just “words” it feels a lesser leap.

If someone wants to understand the legal options (or lack thereof) I suggest consulting a (truly!) reputable lawyer.

Good luck.

[Maleg]

Originally Posted by BlackandBlue80

Why not discuss with the selling dealer that you want a replacement watch? They will likely say they can’t do that, so you could then politely ask which other watches they are selling are stolen. You could also reach out via social media or pitch your story to the news media. Not that you want to destroy the selling dealer, but they did sell a stolen watch. The market for stolen watches would be smaller if dealers weren’t selling stolen goods. I feel for you because you truly had a loss. The 2016 money is worth half of what it would be today, you lost out on using that money in investments, and you can’t buy your son anything close to what you had because the prices are so much higher today. I would personally be very upset and find getting my money back to be unreasonable. The selling dealer gets off unscathed for selling stolen goods which is ridiculous.

Your whole argument is based on vitriol. Only Rolex has access to the Rolex stolen list, so no amount of due diligence by the seller would have revealed what only Rolex knew. Once the seller was advised of the Rolex determination he offered the buyer a full refund. The buyer has been made whole. The seller has no further obligation.

If the buyer were to post unfounded accusations about the seller on the internet and try to damage him and his reputation the seller could surely litigate to halt the slander and seek monetary damages from the buyer.

As much as this case is a disappointment for the buyer, getting a 100% refund is a good deal. The seller did the standup thing. He has no obligation to replace the watch.

[watchlover24]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Yeah, for some reason many lay persons think they can skip the pros (lawyers) and interpret statutes, regs, case precedents etc themselves. I don’t see as many people attempt their own gall bladder surgery or appendectomies, but ai guess when it is just “words” it feels a lesser leap.

If someone wants to understand the legal options (or lack thereof) I suggest consulting a (truly!) reputable lawyer.

Good luck.

Right, except that Calatrava and you are referring to the article shared by OP, not to the CRA. The fact that the article doesn't discuss a scenario similar to OP's doesn't mean that the CRA doesn't apply. In fact, the CRA does apply to cases in which a seller did not have the right to transfer ownership of a good.

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by watchlover24

Right, except that Calatrava and you are referring to the article shared by OP, not to the CRA. The fact that the article doesn't discuss a scenario similar to OP's doesn't mean that the CRA doesn't apply. In fact, the CRA does apply to cases in which a seller did not have the right to transfer ownership of a good.

I am not referring to any article in particular.

As for any legal claim being tenable here, I am not going to provide an opinion. I am merely suggesting that IF someone is considering that path, that they consult someone qualified to provide an opinion.

[iangbris]

Originally Posted by inadeje

You came out unscathed OP.

Our opinions differ, to the tune of 000’s


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk