Timeline for A Swiss watch company seized my watch, saying it was stolen. I bought it 10 years ago. Is that legal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2023 at 10:49 | comment | added | Will | @DonQuiKong you seem to be missing the default condition of separate jurisdictions which is to be free to apply different conditions to persons present within them. Jurisdiction A's recognition of your ownership rights over a particular object cease to have primary relevance when you export the object into jurisdiction B. If instead of a watch we were talking about a drug that was legal in A but not B I don't think you'd be saying "ok, but it doesn't sound correct". | |
| Mar 9, 2023 at 5:48 | comment | added | PMF | Since the OP bought the watch in Poland and apparently lives there, too, I agree that we might need to get the laws of Poland on this matter, too. But I think the important part for the case is that the company cannot just send the item to the alleged original owner in Germany on their own, because there is no law for this. | |
| Mar 8, 2023 at 20:29 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | @Will let me reverse the question: if I buy an item legally in country A where property is transferred by whatever mechanism and then enter with that item country B in which said mechanism is not enough to transfer property - can the original owner seize the item via property laws of country B? It's not my item according to country B's laws, after all. If that's the case, ok, but it doesn't sound correct. And if it's not correct, why should it be different here? There's at least some argument missing here... | |
| Mar 8, 2023 at 11:59 | comment | added | Will | @DonQuiKong domestic civil laws are not international treaties; if Vienna applies here you're going to have to explain how you think it might | |
| Mar 7, 2023 at 5:54 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | @mbrig what about the Vienna convention? Doesn't that apply here? | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 23:24 | comment | added | mbrig | @DonQuiKong If Swiss law believes the watch to be stolen then it would not respect any contract alleging to change its ownership. It's hypothetically possible that some portion of swiss law delegates that determination of stolen/not stolen to a foreign country, but I can't find it and it seems unlikely: those kinds of laws usually flow the opposite direction, where e.g. a cultural object (or funds) that would otherwise be legal to own in Switzerland is made illegal because a foreign country says it was stolen. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 21:55 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | @user71659 but the ownership has - or not - changed according to a contract underlying polish law. The contract, if valid, doesn't become invalid if the watch enters swiss territory, nor vice versa. As long as you don't make an actual legal argument based on international treaties governing applicable law your comment does sound a lot like "I know nothing about law." Forgive me if you happen to be right - then please present a reason. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 20:12 | comment | added | user26151 | The trick is here good faith. Good faith means, that the buyer had made reasonable effort to check if sold item is in rightful possession, eg. requesting and checking car documentation before buying a car. Luxury watches brands can have own registries, that they expect the buyer to check. Failing to meet that expectations may void good faith claims in their eyes. The court can decide otherwise. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 11:43 | comment | added | psmears | @user71659: Not only is it physically in Switzerland, it's also in the possession of a Swiss company. | |
| S Mar 6, 2023 at 10:27 | history | suggested | Peter Mortensen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Copy edited (e.g. ref. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blancpain>). Eliminated the sentence fragment.
|
| Mar 6, 2023 at 10:22 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 6, 2023 at 10:27 | |||||
| Mar 6, 2023 at 6:55 | comment | added | jwenting | Do also keep in mind that cross border crimes may trigger different durations for various things, usually increasing time limits because of (primarily) the slower processes when dealing with agencies in other countries. | |
| Mar 6, 2023 at 3:28 | comment | added | user71659 | @DonQuiKong The watch is physically in Switzerland, so Swiss law applies. It will dictate the legality of the seizure and to whom the watch is transferred to. After it's in Poland or Germany, the matter can be continued to be pursued there. | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 20:22 | comment | added | DonQuiKong | The ownership of the watch is not determined by swiss law - why would it be? Most probable seems to be Polish law, maybe German law. But swiss law? | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 17:45 | comment | added | o.m. | @Wojciech, first you might contact the company and state that you purchased the watch in 2014 in good faith (and that you are prepared to give documents to the authorities). Ask them which laws and time limits they are applying here. | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 15:46 | comment | added | Wojciech | Thanks for quick answer, I've bought it in 2014 from individual person in Poland, so well more than 5 years ago and they wrote me that watch was stolen 10 years ago in Germany. So I assume they are doing wrong, I will contact now lawyer in Switzerland to pursue litigation. | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 15:34 | comment | added | PMF | @o.m. That's what confused me to. But you have a point there. The OP should clarify when exactly what (allegedly) happened. | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 14:48 | comment | added | o.m. | As I read the OP, the sale may or may not have been within 5 years of discovery. I would presume that the company isn't doing this for the first time, and that they have procedures which first and foremost shield the company from liability ... | |
| Mar 5, 2023 at 13:46 | history | answered | PMF | CC BY-SA 4.0 |