Horological Meandering

Hi guys
Advice needed here for a somewhat complicated story. Please bear with me while I explain it.

1) I have recently sold a watch on eBay (no box/papers).
The new owner reached out to the manufacturer asking to service the watch and they said the watch is on their "stolen list". I am shocked and my buyer now wants a refund

2) I reached out to the person I bought it from in 2014 (also off eBay); who traced it to the person HE bought it from and it turns out that:

3) in 2013, This watch was bought in Switzerland from a second-hand Jewellery store and when that original buyer sent the watch in for a service the Manufacturer seized it as a "stolen item". The buyer protested and given that he bought the watch from a jewellery store in good faith, and the original owner from whom the watch was stolen from got insurance compensation the watch company relented and agreed that he was a new legal owner and serviced the watch.
(Swiss police were involved and the thief also was arrested.)

4) Happy ending then (2013) but apparently NOW, that same watch company refused to acknowledge the same watch as having a new legal owner and agree to service it.
WHAT DO I DO? DOESN'T THE FACT THAT THEY CLEARED THE WATCH AS HAVING A NEW LEGAL OWNER IN 2013 CARRY ON TO ALL FUTURE OWNERS? I can establish a complete chain of undisputed ownership since the original resolution.

I won't name the watch company as the case is still going on, but I will mention that the watch company is in Germany.

Any help or ideas will be greatly appreciated.
Cheers

... and since you ask I'll share my opinion:

From my legal understanding the watch has become legal property of the insurance company that compensated the original owner. Unless they waived their ownership rights, it does not really matter how the watch company or the police behaved...

Again, just my humble opinion. In any way I cross my fingers for you to getting this resolved in the best possible way!

Cheers
Henrik

to my knowledge there has not been any other claims on the watch.
The watch manufacturer and the Swiss police have investigated this in 2013, and had enough grounds to release the watch to the new owner (in 2013).
What I don't understand is why NOW, the same watch company will not acknowledge their own decision to return the watch to the new owner.
I have copies of email from the AD saying that the manufacturer had indicated to him that the new owner legally owns the watch now and to service and return watch to him. 

... by the insurer. Through compensation each insurance company worldwide assumes the ownership of the item in case it is found later on. That is simply the legal situation. Like others said, only contact with that insurer will clarify ownership rights.
To your point on the watch company having accepted the watch for service earlier. Now, if you make a mistake once there is no obligation you have to do the same again.
Others also mentioned that each seller in the chain should have been open about the situation in the first place. Especially the jeweler who sold it.
Between your buyer and yourself I personally see an obligation for you to return the payment and get the watch back. That's at least what I as a buyer would expect.
Hope the situation gets cleared positively!
Henrik

If I had known nothing about the watch's history, I certainly have no problem refunding the buyer and "wearing this mistake".
However, if it transpires the watch company knew this watch was stolen and had the opportunity to remove it from circulation (it was sent to their AD for service) but didn't do it, I feel resentful for having to "wear the cost of being stuck with a stolen watch" 2 owners down the track from the original discovery when I had nothing to do with the theft or had no way of knowing about it.
Just saying.

... since you can prove the previous owners knew about it you can claim your money back yourself. The omission of not being open about the history of the watch can be defined as so serious that the contract becomes invalid and reimbursement can be claimed.
All in all a very unpleasant situation, you certainly have my full sympathy and I seriously hope you get it resolved positively. It's also a good reminder to all of us here that things can go wrong and we need to be aware of potential flaws, not only on watches without papers since false documentation is quite common these days, unfortunately.

I will write this up for one of the forums once I know how this situation plays out.

Definitely an "eye opener" for me

But it is more complicated still.

There is no claim from the insurance company.
I have no explanation why the same watch company doesn't acknowledge their own decision from 2013.
All the are saying is: "The watch was stolen, and we will not service it". But they investigated this in 2013 and decided in favour of the new owner!!!

write a few letters and try to sort it out over time.

I keep trying.
Very frustrating so far.

The stories about the previous happenings with your watch may be fabricated, like they say: "Paper will take anything" . It is easy to produce false email . That could be the reason the factory never absolved the watch. I hope you come to peace. Best Edward

Yes, currently trying to work this situation out.
The company is stone-walling but I am sure the situation is as described (i.e. in 2013, watch was investigated by the manufacturer, swiss police and AD. The watch was returned to the buyer with the approval of the company and the AD, but now the watch company is kicking up trouble.
I can't explain it, but am annoyed that 1 was the 2nd owner in the chain after the original discovery and now they want ME to wear the cost of being stuck with this watch.
Very frustrating.

Contents of the emails have been corroborated with the parties involved, who have a direct relationship with the maker in question. The matter is extremely frustrating, and any attempts to reason have been shot down with little to no explanation.
(I`m the buyer in question)

I hope that with some patience the issue will come to a happy conclusion. I wish both of you the best of luck. Best regards Edward

I would query the current status from the insurers first.
If the police caught and successfully prosecuted an individual, the watch would’ve been retained as evidence and should’ve been returned to the insurers – unless they secured reimbursement from the individual via the courts.
Logically, it doesn’t make sense for the watch to have been left with/returned to the store, for them then to be able to legally sell – if I had to guess, the manufacturer hasn’t been informed of its recovered status by the insurers, and until that’s done, they will be following their own due diligence policy.
So get something in writing from the insurers stating they have no claim to the property, and then provide that to your buyer or directly to the manufacturer.
Hopefully it’ll all be resolved relatively quickly.

The insurer is not involved.
My understanding is that all this was sorted back in 2013.
If now, the watch company is saying that they made the wrong call, I believe that I (as a later owner of the watch) should be compensated since the watch company allowed this "illegal" watch to remain in circulation instead of impounding it.
Why should a later owner (who had nothing to do with the original theft or even 2 ownerships later) have to bear the brunt of a watch I cannot service or sell.
This is very frustrating

If you want to provide me with all the info, I’d be more than happy to speak with the manufacturer to see what I can do for you.

I am currently waiting to hear back from the watch manufacturer. I sent them a long letter with all my evidence of their previous involvement. We'll see where it gets us.

Still willing to try, but I think you’d be best to get in touch with the insurers now, and obtain written confirmation that they were the insurers of the item at the time of its theft, and subsequently no longer have any claim to it.
Your local branch/HQ of the insurers should be able to handle your enquiry and furnish you with a letter that allows the manufacturer to remove it from their stolen register.
The only thing I can think of, is that the manufacturer has since changed its policy or the person dealing with it at the time did not follow protocol.

... do you know if anyone (other than the original owner) knows the name of the insurance company? I couldn't tell from this thread if the insurance company's name is known by anyone involved other than the original owner, who might not have ever disclosed the insurance company's name to anyone. I'm asking because I'm curious if the watch manufacturer might not have known the name of the insurance company back when it returned the watch to the new "owner," and subsequently the insurance company might've come forward with a claim to the watch manufacturer. It's farfetched but possible.

If we put ourselves in his shoes, that is only fair. 

Police document everything, and I'm sure the Swiss police more assiduously than most. The report should include the disposition of the evidence.

I'm detecting a fabrication by the original jewelry store, who has already (by their own admission, even if a fabrication) undermined their reputation by receiving stolen goods. A police report would prove that the matter was indeed investigated and a perpetrator apprehended. Using that (or perhaps as part of it), a report of the chain of evidence should be available.

The story's aroma emanates from the claim that the original owner was already compensated by his insurer, and therefore no further compensation was required. As you have heard, it doesn't work that way.

I would want all the police documentation in hand before contacting the insurance company.

--Rick

I don't have official police reports. The case was handled 2 owners ago (not me, not the guy I bought the watch from m, but the guy HE bought it from - if you know what I mean).

My frustration is that the original evidence was presented to the watch company in 2013 and they felt it was compelling enough to recognise the new owner as the new legal possessor of the timepiece.
I don't understand why they do not honour their own 2013 decision, and they are not providing any explanations for this change of heart.

Anyway, I am still waiting to hear from the watch company (they have not replied to my last email). VERY AGGRAVATING

No message body

No message body

My pain is different to your pain
It Is not a langematic anniversary