Some advice, please...

[M9reno]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Advance apologies for the calculated (and hopefully understandable) vagueness in what follows:

A few days ago I bought a second-hand camera from a well-known dealer.  It was an item sold on commission.  I paid by credit card, total bill about £1k.

After arriving home, I googled the type of camera I’d just bought...

...up came numerous reports of a burglary at the same shop, which included my purchase and its serial number listed as stolen.  Thereupon I checked my purchase invoice and noticed that the serial number of the camera was not mentioned.

I began to feel a headache coming on at this point.

I phoned the shop the next day.  The staff member who sold the camera said that the shop would issue a new invoice, which would include the serial number, as well as a letter signed by the shop owner, confirming good title.  No further explanations were given, or pressed for (on my side).  The invoice and letter are expected in this week’s post.  The shop also offered to contact Wetzlar with clarification that the item was never stolen.

I’m currently reluctant to return the camera, which is rather unique, despite that being obviously the easiest course.  But I’m obviously aware that keeping it might not be the end of this headache.

For any comments on any of the above I’d be very grateful.  Thanks in advance.

Edited September 2, 2019 by M9reno

[jaapv]

I would say that the shop handled the matter correctly. I think the invoice and letter will cover the legal aspects. After all, during a burglary aftermath, mistakes can be made in identifying stolen items, items may be recovered, etc. If you are worried, you could consult a lawyer. Some offer a free first advice service.

[M9reno]

Thanks, Jaap.  That’s reassuring. Sad thing is... I am a lawyer (in a former and long-forgotten career)!  😜

I want to give the dealer every benefit of the doubt.  However, I am rather bothered by that serial number widely advertised on the net as stolen, I must admit.

[jaapv]

Come to think of it, the only one who could hold legal title to the camera is the shop. Which sold it to you after the burglary, thus transferring the title to you. Provided they informed their insurance company, which I'm sure they did, and even if they didn't, that would be a matter between them and the company, with ugly words flying.

[jaapv]

2 minutes ago, M9reno said:

Thanks, Jaap.  That’s reassuring. Sad thing is... I am a lawyer (in a former and long-forgotten career)!  😜

I want to give the dealer every benefit of the doubt.  However, I am rather bothered by that serial number widely advertised on the net as stolen, I must admit.

The covering letter should be enough to cover you should you want to sell it on - which you probably don't.

[willeica]

40 minutes ago, M9reno said:

Advance apologies for the calculated (and hopefully understandable) vagueness in what follows:

A few days ago I bought a second-hand camera from a well-known dealer.  It was an item sold on commission.  I paid by credit card, total bill about £1k.

After arriving home, I googled the type of camera I’d just bought...

...up came numerous reports of a burglary at the same shop, which included my purchase and its serial number listed as stolen.  Thereupon I checked my purchase invoice and noticed that the serial number of the camera was not mentioned.

I began to feel a headache coming on at this point.

I phoned the shop the next day.  The staff member who sold the camera said that the shop would issue a new invoice, which would include the serial number, as well as a letter signed by the shop owner, confirming good title.  No further explanations were given, or pressed for (on my side).  The invoice and letter are expected in this week’s post.  The shop also offered to contact Wetzlar with clarification that the item was never stolen.

I’m currently reluctant to return the camera, which is rather unique, despite that being obviously the easiest course.  But I’m obviously aware that keeping it might not be the end of this headache.

For any comments on any of the above I’d be very grateful.  Thanks in advance.

I agree generally with Jaap's views. As you bought from a professional dealer you can make a presumption that the dealer had good title to the item. The paperwork which you will receive will strengthen that. Am I right in thinking that the camera with the same serial number is said to have been stolen from the dealer and not from a third party? If that is the case then you have nothing to worry about. If the dealer has made a claim with an insurance company in respect of the camera, then the dealer can settle any matters that may arise. 

William

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I endorse all that Jaapv has written. Furthermore, I suggest you ask for a copy of the reply from Leica Wetzlar regarding their records of legitimate ownership. I think you can sleep easy on this piece of undocumented history. Certainly you should accept the vendor's offer to send you an amended invoice.

[M9reno]

1 hour ago, willeica said:

Am I right in thinking that the camera with the same serial number is said to have been stolen from the dealer and not from a third party?

That’s correct.

1 hour ago, willeica said:

 If the dealer has made a claim with an insurance company in respect of the camera, then the dealer can settle any matters that may arise.

But in that case wouldn’t the insurance company be the actual holder of title to the camera, if they have already paid out for it?  And the fact that the sale was on commission adds another layer of confusion:  does a store ever hold title on a commission sale?

[LocalHero1953]

The insurance company would have a claim, but I am not sure if that is a right to the physical camera or just a financial claim for redress from the insured - I suspect the latter. Some years ago I made a claim for theft from a public event, of a bag containing some money and low value items (I claimed on behalf of the event organiser). A year later it turned out that someone had walked off with the bag thinking it was their own and had since been working/travelling overseas, leaving the bag at home. They returned everything. I had a conversation with the insurance company, who asked for the cash back, but declared that they didn't want the low value items, although they were entitled to either the objects or the cash value of the claim for them.

[wattsy]

I doubt that the dealer had any kind of title in an item being sold on a commission basis but would presumably have had obligations to the title holder (as part of the agreed terms of commission sale) in respect of safe keeping and a liability in the event of the item being stolen etc. This liability would presumably be covered by the insurance company. In this particular case, title to the goods may not have passed at all until the camera was purchased by the OP. Without seeing the exact terms and conditions of the various contracts between the dealer, the person consigning the camera for sale on a commission basis, and the OP; or knowing the history of what happened between the dealer and the dealer's insurance company, I don't think we have anything like enough information to begin to offer an opinion on the legal status of the OP's title to the camera.

[wattsy]

Thinking about this further, my best guess is that any insurance payout in respect of the item being stolen would made on the basis of covering the dealer's financial liability to the owner of the camera and not for the loss of the camera itself. The dealer didn't have title to the camera so the insurance payout cannot be contingent on the insurance company gaining title to the stolen goods. In other words, what went on between the dealer and the insurance company is presumably just between them and doesn't bear on the ownership of the camera in question. Title to the camera has presumably passed directly from the original owner (person selling it via the dealer) to the OP.

[zeitz]

I would contact the local police to talk to a detective familiar with the case.  The whole situation raises a red flag.

[willeica]

7 hours ago, M9reno said:

That’s correct.

But in that case wouldn’t the insurance company be the actual holder of title to the camera, if they have already paid out for it?  And the fact that the sale was on commission adds another layer of confusion:  does a store ever hold title on a commission sale?

On a commission sale, the store would not hold title but would have paperwork to show that the vendor had asked them to act on their behalf. However, when the dealer is a professional seller the contract of sale to the ultimate consumer acquirer (such as yourself) would be between the dealer and the consumer acquirer. You can safely rely (as a consumer actor in the transaction) on the dealer as having had the right to sell the item to you (you don't have to see the underlying paperwork) and you can safely assume that you now have good title to the item.

As for an item where an insurance claim was made (even inadvertently) and was paid out on a subsequently sold item, the insurance company could either seek repayment from the party to whom the claim was paid or seek re-possession of the item from the current owner. The former is a much more likely scenario as the insurance company would have costs in ultimately disposing of the item which could wipe out any or all of the value to them, unless the item was extremely valuable. In the unlikely event that the item was re-possessed you would be entitled to a full refund from the dealer and, perhaps, some compensation as well.

I believe that as a consumer you are legally entitled to rely on the presumption that the dealer had good title to the item or had the legal right to sell it to you. You are right to seek documents setting out the serial numbers and other relevant details. You need to establish clearly that the dealer in question sold you this actual item.

Enjoy your 'new' camera, Alfonso.

William

[NigelG]

Echoing the above my understanding is that under the Factors Act if the dealer has an item on commission sale and is in physical possession of the goods when you purchase them you are entitled to believe that they are of good title....ie a legit purchase. It is the dealer (Factor)’s responsibility to confirm title from the vendor on whose behalf they act. I think the insurance payment/claim is a side issue between third parties.

I had to look into this when a well known UK dealer sold me a camera that had just been expensively refurbished in Wetzlar. While away the owner had telephoned the dealer to say that they had changed their mind and wanted the camera returned to them when it came back. This message was not passed on and I bought the camera online from the dealer. In this case I became the legal owner even though the original owner had told the dealer not to sell it due to the fact that the camera was “in the dealers hands” and thus could be offered for sale until it was collected or returned to the original owner.

Having said all that I’m not a lawyer so.........🤔

Edited September 2, 2019 by NigelG
Clarity

[M9reno]

Thanks to all.  I feel more relaxed thanks to your advice.  I await the paperwork to see that it indeed says what the shop told me it would.  Perhaps some explanation for the erroneous listing might be forthcoming, though I won’t insist on it.

Indeed, as Jaap says, I don’t expect to sell the camera for many years, so my main concern is not what a prospective buyer might think, but just annoyingly having the camera retained by some well-meaning party, including Leica, sometime in the future.

[pedaes]

In my experience having sold on commission, both dealers wanted reasonable assurance I was legitimate owner.

As you paid by credit card you have another layer of protection there.

Enjoy your new camera!

[mby]

I would strongly recommend to discuss it with the police; from what I heard, it not only depends on the country (in some countries, you cannot gain ownership of stolen items), but might have other repercussions like if you now know that the item was stolen you might could be guilty of "receipt of stolen property" which seems to be a felony at the federal level in the US and other countries (see fro example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_of_stolen_goods#United_Kingdom).