sc16
541
With all due respect…
Jan 28, 2016,20:21 PM
Imho, I do believe you are missing the point here as AQ just needed to do one thing and one thing only….
Once AQ found out that the item could potentially be stolen, the only thing AQ needed to do was to contact the local police authorities and have the item secured so that the process for the rightful owner can start whether it be the consignor or Nicolas; this way AQ would have done their duty, maintained their ‘status’ (in the market) and would have been more trustworthy. AQ would no longer be involved, other than providing the details of the consignor to the local authorities, so the rightful owner can be determined by the authorities who are in a better position to judge than AQ self (as you also mention).
AQ had nothing to lose by doing so and it would have sent the right signal to the stolen watch market. Legally they would have been fine (even if sued by the consignor) as the legal complications are not for AQ, but for the consignor and more importantly Nicolas as then international law comes into play who the rightful owner is.
By sending back the watch to the consigner they have actually achieved the opposite:
• No longer trustworthy
• Loss of 'status' (within the market)
• A negative word of mouth which is already in play
• But most importantly, imho their action may seem to have unintentionally given the wrong signal to the stolen watch market and the people involved in the event it gets discovered the watch is stolen.
Kind regards,
sc16