Maybe our girl Suzana is looking to punish the AD and won’t care about $$$ and a NDA

 

the sales originating as over the counter in the first clause is pretty broad in its application. Basically as long as the customer walked into the showroom at any point they can fulfill that.

on the other hand call any AD and say you want a Cellini and they will ship to you in a heartbeat.

 

Where is this from? I’d be very surprised if this document lived anywhere in the wild.

For example, the lawsuit complaint quotes some such language but from a version dated in, like, the 1980s.

If these plaintiffs lawyers couldn’t get their hands on a relevant Rolex AD agreement, I’m dying to know where you did!

 

A copy of CD Peacock and Rolex agreement is available through SEC database, probably was there even before this lawsuit, we just did not know a correct link to it.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix031/817946/0003.txt

 

They can't however conspire with buyers to commit tax fraud and illegally export those watches. They can't offer bribes to keep the lid on such illegal activity and fire those who won't play ball. Which are among the things that are being alleged in the suit.

 

I'm curious as to what kind of business person would want to be a Rolex dealer under these circumstances? Having empty display cases for the popular models and display cases full of slow moving watches? By force?

 

But who wouldn't be tempted to enter in these kinds of schemes when one has the power of making more than 100% profit on the products they're able to obtain for resale?

 

Sorry, I think there’s a confusion here

The document you linked to is in the plaintiff’s complaint. It’s been there since the beginning.

Its a circa 2000 agreement between Rolex and “Mayor's Jewelers, Inc.”

Not only is it not CD Peacock’s agreement, and not only is it 21 years old, it’s both terminable at will and contains the following (adorable) provision:

“Rolex reserves the unilateral right to amend any
of the terms of this Agreement, to cancel or amend
any or all policies and procedures, and to issue
new policies and procedures. Such changes shall be effective upon notice to Jeweler, or at such other
time as Rolex may designate.”

Which is to say, I would bet the rent money that Rolex’s year 2000 “agreements” look very little like its modern day agreements.

 

I agree, but I would also bet the rent money that Rolex has not amended their AD agreements to allow AD's to become wholesalers...

 

100%! That concept is beyond reproach!

More to the point, I'd like to see the modern day version of the 2000 prohibitive paragraph quoted above - the latter existing well before the depth of the internet, grey market, modern Rolex business model, etc.

But the secrecy of that document is assuredly among the main reasons a court would seal this case.

 

Grebitus & Sons is a decades-old jeweler in Sacramento. I went there a while back to look into getting on a Rolex wait list. A Grebitus son told me they didn't carry Rolex any more. "Why not?" I asked. He replied, "A couple years ago Rolex told us to set aside an additional 50 square feet in this store and devote it exclusively to Rolex watches. We refused. They pulled the account."

 

You are correct, thanks for pointing this out. Whilst it is not a carbon copy of CDP agreement, plaintiff believes that said agreement "contains similar and/or the same restraints on sales of Rolex products, as discussed herein".

I doubt that modern day agreement says anything about the grey market. Is "grey market" even defined in legal way, probably not, and at the end of the day - all greys are a good thing for pumping up the modern Rolex business model.
Greys by default do not fit into "ultimate consumer" definition, so to me by default are excluded from the potential customers of CDP. Even if there are some provisions reguating the sale to the deemed greys - those provisions should be effective into '-Do not sell to them, at all ' rather than
'-Ok, let's sell to them, at least for $10 million'.

The internet is a distribution channel but the character of the distribution should still remain as retail, as Archer noticed, the sale scheme developed by CDP is closer to the whoelsale with a plan, goal and general coordination within CDP structure.

 

It’s common knowledge that the current Rolex agreement forbids internet sales of watches.

 

My local AD lost their account back in the early 00’s because they were apparently secret shopped and they didn’t put the watch in a Rolex mat (they used a plain one) and weren’t wearing gloves when they handed it to the customer. That is at least what I was told.
They got it back a decade later, now the entire front section of their store is dedicated Rolex and dead empty- like totally- there should be crime scene tape up. Yet their other sections of brands, many far more prestigious than Rolex are brimming with product and sell briskly.
I asked the “watch guy” there (whom I have known many years) how it was being a Rolex dealer and he said it was tough because he hates saying “no” to customers and playing the waiting list game. He tries to show them other brands, but most customers who come in looking specifically for Rolex don’t want anything else.

 

May be some misscommunication here: I am absolutely confident any current agreement prohibits any number of sales methodologies or markets

I was instead just interested to see the actual modern agreement, and surprised if any could be found in the wild

BTW, I also doubt it would be terribly detailed: based on the 21 year old version, it basically amounts to saying “you’ll do what we say, when we say it” - so, that in hand, any manner of “requirements” would likely be conveniently left “off paper” for more informal channels

 

Was at Old Orchard this past weekend, looks like they removed Rolex signage.