Sailor says being blackmailed by Christie's Auctions over £10k Rolex he lost at sea

gatorcpa

Which is why Christies was trying to broker a quiet settlement between the two parties.

jimmyd13

I'm going to try to keep this pretty generalised as I don't know the details and I'm too tired (lazy?) to look them up, assuming they're even available.

The basic rule when it comes to selling goods in the UK is that "no-one gives what he doesn't have". So, let's assume that the watch was stolen: the person who stole the watch has flawed (or no) title - he doesn't own the watch. Anyone who subsequently buys that watch inherits the same flawed title and that buyer will be the loser in any subsequent claim. The fact that the watch is very identifiable because of the engraving would probably mean that any claim would be easily proven and the watch goes back to the original owner. What does it mean here? There is no way on this earth or the next that the auction house would dare sell the watch.

Now, there are always exceptions in English Law. The one that's relevant here is "estoppel by negligence". Estoppel is a principle of equity (fairness) that was introduced into law. The question that has to be asked is "has the original owner done anything that will preclude him from exercising his legal rights?". When it comes to estoppel by negligence, the question changes to "has the owner FAILED to do something which would then preclude him from exercising his rights of ownership. We actually have precedent on this very question: does the failure to report a theft to the police constitute estoppel by negligence? And the answer is a definite "no". So failure to report a theft doesn't damage your claim to the goods.

Does the owner have to prove theft? Well, yes. He could go with res (ipsa loquitur) - the thing speaks for itself - moving the onus on to the seller to prove that he didn't steal the watch or that he didn't buy it from someone who stole the watch. This could get messy and we'll just leave it at that for now with the exception of this: if the seller can show that the watch was found while diving, for instance, then salvage rights might well come in to play.

What's the bottom line here? The original owner retains good title under English law. The current holder of the property is the one with flawed title and will bear the loss. If the current holder has proof of purchase and/or a contract, he has an action against the seller for the value but this does nothing to give good title.

Source: nine years of law school and practice before I saw the light and did something honest for a change.

kingsrider

Perhaps there is a scenario that fits both the owners feelings that the watch had gone overboard and that it was stolen. It is plausible that he had removed the watch on board, the watch went missing and was assumed that the watch had gone overboard. When the watch turns up, the possibility of theft comes into play.

Sgt_Bilko

It's also possible the original owner just didn't want to think the watch was stolen. Most likely he was onboard with people he trusted and counted as friends. When it turned up 20 years later he then had the confront the likely reality.

WatchVaultNYC

Implies that everything you buy in the UK must have complete provenance all the way to the original store purchase receipt for current buyer to be fully secure in his purchase? Legal it may be, but nasty!

jimmyd13

What it means is that a purchaser must perform due diligence.

Let's look at a few common examples:

If you make a purchase from a reputable store, then you will have been deemed to have performed due diligence. You still inherit a flawed title and may lose possession of the goods if they turn out to be stolen, but you have recourse against the store.

If you make a private purchase of an item (most commonly a car,I would guess), then you run an HPI check - there are plenty of companies that offer these. You now have the protection of the HPI assurance.

If you purchase a house or land, then your conveyancer has professional indemnity insurance which will give you protection for the loss.

Protection is also given when purchases are made on a credit card.

So the list goes on.

But if you look at it from the other side, if courts didn't take this line then they would be granting rights of ownership to the thief ... can anyone think that is a better choice?

WatchVaultNYC

Not that I am siding with anyone in this particular case, but that's a straw man argument - you're assuming that at least one of the people who have possessed the watch is a thief, instead of gaining possession of the watch by having found it or purchasing it.

Consider the situation where the watch was sold to a pawnshop, then resold several times until it's purchased by the current owner. If the original owner decades later destitute and needing money claims it was instead stolen (with no proof it was stolen other than a changing story) and given greater rights to the property than the person who currently has it in their possession. Do you think that's a good choice? That's like being assumed guilty until proven innocent.

I'm not a lawyer, and even less familiar with UK law, but that seems unfair. What would be fair to me is that the previous owner should have contemporaneous evidence that the watch was indeed stolen (like a police report at the time, or even testimony from friends that the theft actually happened - instead of loss, abandonment, or sale) order to make such a claim. Changing your mind about how you lost the watch decades later, is at the very least, reason for pause. Much commerce, especially between individuals, occur without paperwork. This is a normal situation.

gatorcpa

Which is why Christies was trying to broker a quiet settlement between the two parties.

The original owner chose not to play along. He will now likely need to go to court as you indicated. I hope he has proof that his title is still valid, otherwise he might be left with nothing but big legal bills.
gatorcpa

jimmyd13

I'm typing my reply from my phone, so apologies in advance if I miss anything (or if I show how terribly I type on a small keyboard with auto-correct).

When something has been stolen, someone suffers a loss. There's no getting away from that. Over time and through legislation the courts here have consistently held that the person to suffer the loss will not be the legitimate owner, unless that person has done something to negate his rights to the property.

How about another example: how about you purchase a Chagall? A Chagall who's provenance you can trace back through six previous owners. And one day a 98 year old woman tells you that she last saw that Chagall hanging on the wall of her father's study the day before her whole family was put on a train to Buchenwald. Who's got the better title there? Who should bear that loss?

The law has never claimed to be fair but in this case (of the watch, not the imagined painting) there are equitable principles in play as well. Even so, I see no reason in the facts reported to suspect the original owner does not have good title. I'll go further, given what's been reported, and say the auction house are pretty certain he has the best title too.

jimmyd13

When something has been stolen, someone suffers a loss. There's no getting away from that. Over time and through legislation the courts here have consistently held that the person to suffer the loss will not be the legitimate owner, unless that person has done something to negate his rights to the property.

Archer

WatchVault is a reseller of watches, and his perspective is different. Very understandable given that this kind of scenario may present itself some day on a watch that he (or another reseller on here) sells that he bought with the understanding it was a legit watch. Would be curious to know what steps the resellers here take to ensure that watches that they buy are not stolen goods?

jimmyd13

Indemnity insurance is available (certainly in the UK). I'd link to a few examples but I'm not sure what the guidelines are on here to "advertising". If anyone was interested, it wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to turn up a few companies offering that service.

Edit: Beyond the due diligence of how someone came to own the piece that any reseller was considering and checking the stolen antiques/property database that the police (here) offer, I'm not sure what more could be done, or should be done.

Archer

WatchVault is a reseller of watches, and his perspective is different. Very understandable given that this kind of scenario may present itself some day on a watch that he (or another reseller on here) sells that he bought with the understanding it was a legit watch. Would be curious to know what steps the resellers here take to ensure that watches that they buy are not stolen goods?

Cheers, Al

WatchVaultNYC

The inventory goes through third party authenticity and theft database checks, so most of the risk is avoided.

That said, the mark of a good business is how gracefully it handles situations when things don't go as planned. If even after due diligence the law decides a watch was at some point stolen, we will of course do the right thing and refund my buyer. That said, this scenario has never happened (return because watch was fake or stolen)

As for insurance, there's also business liability insurance that covers everything from a crate of watches falling in top of someone, all the way through to loss of revenue from hacking, and lawsuits from someone suing you because they got indigestion when they ate a Speedmaster. I pay several thousand bucks a year for that.