ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX
24 March 2024, 05:29 PM | #91 | |
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2022
Location: LA
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
|
|
24 March 2024, 05:55 PM | #92 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: Europe
Posts: 821
|
This is exactly why a lot of dealers prefer you to 'come to them' if there are any issues with the watch and they'll fix it. I've heard it being said a million times from these Youtube dealers.
For sure a lot of shady stuff going on with all those 'no box no papers' watches. |
24 March 2024, 06:05 PM | #93 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 31
|
100% disagree. The watch was my brothers. It was stolen from him. THe dealer was in possession of stolen property. He sold stolen property. The ownership never transferred from my brother. The watch always belongs to him. The second buyer did nothing wrong (other than buying a watch from a non authorized dealer, if you can consider that wrong) but he never owned the watch. He was the second victim in this story where he handed over his money to someone who gave him something that didn't belong to him and therefore could not transfer ownership. This is no different than me stopping you on the street and offering to sell you a car parked on the street that I just found the car keys don't the flood that the owner dropped.. You give me a 1000 bucks for it and tell you its yours. You drive off with it. You don't own the car. You were swindled out of 1000 bucks. You need to get your money back from the person who swindled you ( in the car scenario- not the owner of the car) or from the person who sold you the watch since they are the ones that took your money and gave yo something they had no right to give you. THe owner of the watch is still my brother. There should be no dispute about this. The poor second buyer needs to demand or sue the person who sold him stolen merchandise. But, my brother simply needs to have his stolen merchandise returned to him.
|
24 March 2024, 06:14 PM | #94 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: UK
Watch: 126710BLNR
Posts: 150
|
Perhaps another example of Rolex’s decision to not allow access to their stolen watch register leads to a stolen watch being bought and sold a number of times. If they hadn’t withdraw this there would not be so many transactions of stolen watches.
|
24 March 2024, 06:52 PM | #95 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: london
Posts: 392
|
I think rolex can develop a pay to play system, let those people in need to access their stolen database.
|
25 March 2024, 11:43 PM | #96 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Real Name: Vincent
Location: 215
Watch: SS Sub
Posts: 2,361
|
Quote:
The grey maybe liable if he purchases from the theft without doing enough due diligence. however, when the other guy purchases from the grey under good faith and can provide proof that it's fair trade transaction, his ownership begins at that point. If your brother wants the watch back, he needs to purchase the watch from the other guy as a separate transaction. |
|
26 March 2024, 12:22 AM | #97 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Real Name: PaulG
Location: Georgia
Posts: 42,015
|
Quote:
Not true in USA - but I can't say what another Country does. The original owner loses "possession" upon the theft. He or She does not lose "ownership". The buyer of a stolen watch, even unwittingly, does not gain clear title. The matter will go to the authorities who performed the original police report. If the recovery occurs in a different country, then that jurisdiction plays an important role - bilateral agreements on repatriating stolen assets will matter a lot. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
__________________
Does anyone really know what time it is? |
|
26 March 2024, 01:52 AM | #98 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Nov 2019
Real Name: Vincent
Location: 215
Watch: SS Sub
Posts: 2,361
|
Quote:
|
|
26 March 2024, 01:52 AM | #99 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: May 2020
Real Name: Henry
Location: USA
Posts: 4,288
|
Quote:
No. You do not lose legal ownership of goods after they have been stolen. If that were the case, there would be no such charge as “possession of stolen goods” as possession would be all that matters. |
|
26 March 2024, 02:59 AM | #100 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Feb 2024
Location: Texas
Posts: 205
|
Quote:
If they don't come to an agreement between themselves, it will be remanded to the police department who will take it before a judge for a declaratory judgment based on the evidence they have. The judge will rule, again if all is as has been presented in this post, in favor of the original owner and that will be that. Unless the current owner is the actual thief or it can be shown that they knowingly bought stolen goods, they aren't under any legal trouble, but their only hope for compensation outside of the original owner coming to a financial agreement to avoid the courts, would be to contact the individual from whom they purchased said watch for a refund. |
|
26 March 2024, 03:28 AM | #101 | |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: World
Watch: 16750
Posts: 2,733
|
Quote:
1 ultimatum later that has remained unreplied - his flat got searched on Christmas Eve and my watch has been returned 2 weeks later. And he had to pay for my attorney and court fees. |
|
26 March 2024, 03:08 PM | #102 |
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 31
|
Ummm,No. What country laws are you citing? What you cited sounds ridiculous and certainly not the not the case in the USA (where the theft occurred). You do not lose ownership of an item if someone steals it from you. You lose possession and then get possession back when it is recovered.
|
26 March 2024, 08:50 PM | #103 | |
2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member
Join Date: Jul 2022
Location: Budapest, HU
Watch: 17000B, B+W
Posts: 2,367
|
Quote:
|
|
27 March 2024, 02:11 PM | #104 | ||
"TRF" Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 31
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
*Banners
Of The Month*
This space is provided to horological resources.