Skip to main content

If You Buy A Rolex That Was Stolen (But You Didn't Know), Do You Have Legal Ownership Of It?

Interesting case from New York County Civil Court (a kind of small claims court). I don't have access to the court filings (none of them were e-filed), just a short summary from the New York Law Journal (pay wall).

But based on that short article, this appears to be what happened: dealer/jeweler Choraria sells Rolex watches. In 2007, the subject watch was stolen from him. At some point between 2007 and 2017, another dealer/jeweler, Jeffrey Bouvier, bought the watch (from somebody). I assume Bouvier didn't know the watch had been stolen, and we have no idea how many times it passed hands before it was eventually sold to Bouvier. Thus, Bouvier would be a "good faith" purchaser.

It turns out the watch was damaged. So, Bouvier innocently enough sends the watch off to Rolex to be repaired. Rolex runs a search of the watch's serial number and learns it had been reported stolen back in 2007.

Choraria says the watch belongs to him because it had been stolen. Bouvier argues no, the watch belongs to him, he bought it fair and square. Rolex doesn't know what to do, so it brings an interpleader action in court to say here is the situation, we don't know who the watch should belong to, so you, judge, decide.

The judge declared that Choraria was the rightful owner of the watch because Bouvier could not lawfully acquire title/ownership of a stolen watch. The guy who originally stole the watch could never pass legal title to anyone else.

Rolex apparently has to bring these kinds of actions every now and then. Here is a decision from a 2009 case.

So, Choraria gets his watch back, 10 years later, and after paying a lawyer, but Bouvier is out the money he paid for the watch and the watch. Only the watch thief comes out a winner in this situation.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Being Fired for Things an Employee Did On Their Own Time, Outside of Work: Legal or Not?

New York is an "at will" employment state, meaning that, in the absence of a contract, you can be fired at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all, unless the reason is based on something like age, race, religion, disability, etc. (just a handful of categories). (Government employees have more protections than private-sector employees, such as First Amendment protections.) One of the few exceptions to the at-will employment rule is New York Labor Law §201-d. The statute is lengthy and has lots of caveats and qualifiers and defenses (for the employer). But the gist of § 201-d is that an employee can't be disciplined or fired (or not hired) for something they do on their own time, away from work, that is legal, and that is not against the employer's interests.  The statute and the reported cases mostly deal with "recreational" and "political" activities, and the cases can turn on whether something was a "recreational activity...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Employment Contract Enforceable Against Employer Even Though Not Signed

The plaintiff is a modeling scout. Defendant modeling agency decided to hire him as a modeling scout for $190,000/year, plus bonuses. An employment contract was prepared. One provision of the contact said that if the plaintiff were ever fired without cause, he would be entitled to 6-months severance ($95,000). The contract also said that it could be signed in counterparts. The plaintiff signed the contract on August 18, 2015 and emailed his signature to the modeling agency. One of the agency's board members emailed back, saying "Welcome aboard. We'll countersign over the next few days." But no one from the agency ever signed the contract. Nevertheless, the plaintiff began working as a modeling scout, and the agency paid him according to the contract. But after six months, the agency decided to terminate him, without cause. The agency then refused to pay him the $95,000 severance, and the plaintiff brought a lawsuit for breach of contract. The modeling agency m...
Post a Comment
Read more

Recent Case Developments: Contractor Entitled to be Paid For Extra Work Not Part of Original Contract

On September 12, 2013, the Town of Kent (Putnam County) entered into a contract with a contractor to build a sewer.  During construction, certain "conditions that were unexpected and unanticipated" arose, requiring the contractor to do "extra" work--things beyond the scope of work of the original contract. (The appeals court doesn't detail what this extra work was.) The contractor performed the extra work, totaling around $380,000 in additional costs. For reasons not stated by the appeals court, the Town refused to pay for this extra work, and the contractor eventually sued the Town in May, 2015.  The contractor moved for summary judgment in the lower court (a kind of mini-trial on paper), and the court awarded judgment in favor of the contractor for the $380,000.  The Town appealed, but the appeals court sided with the contractor, saying that even though this "extra" work was not within the scope of work of the original contract, the con...
Post a Comment
Read more