A man named Ali Rezaei had a strong desire to own a rose gold Patek Philippe Nautilus ref. 5980/1R. He approached his local boutique, Shreve & Co, a well-established authorized Patek Philippe dealer in the Bay Area, to inquire about purchasing the coveted watch. However, Rezaei claims that instead of being able to make the purchase, he was informed by Shreve & Co. that he needed to establish a history of purchases in order to have the opportunity to acquire the 5980. Determined, Rezaei proceeded to make several substantial purchases from Shreve & Co. over an 18-month period, including a Patek 5905R, two watches from Patek's women's collection, and a diamond bracelet, totaling $220,000.
Throughout this time, Rezaei alleges that Shreve & Co. and its sales associates consistently encouraged him to buy more items, with the expectation that he would eventually be offered the coveted watch. However, despite these purchases and assurances, Rezaei never received the promised Patek Philippe Nautilus ref. 5980/1R.
It's worth noting that Shreve & Co. has a long-standing history dating back to 1852 and was one of the earliest American retailers representing Patek Philippe. However, the boutique lost its status as a Patek authorized dealer in April 2022, which coincided with Rezaei's purchase of the diamond bracelet. The lawsuit claims that Shreve knew about the impending loss of its authorized dealer status well in advance but failed to inform its sales representatives or Rezaei. This allegedly allowed the boutique to maximize sales revenue by enticing customers to purchase merchandise they wouldn't have otherwise bought, with the promise of being offered highly sought-after Patek Philippe watches.
Rezaei's lawsuit against Shreve & Co. includes various claims such as breach of contract, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, false promise, and unfair business practices under California's Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit was filed on June 9, and Shreve & Co. has 30 days to respond. While the outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain, it may shed light on the practices of authorized dealers and their allocation of high-demand watches.