[gbacon]

Here’s how to feel about it: MYOB.

If the dealers don’t like the terms, they can sell other brands and need to stop tattling to Maman.

Of all the problems, busybodies decided this was the important one to make a stand on. Fixing potholes in the roads would be more worthwhile. Kids are sleeping cold and hungry in the streets, but sacré bleu at not being able to point-and-drool for a fancy watch.

So-called Competition “Authorities” everywhere can go pound sand.

[bongodongobob]

Yeah that's where I lean. I don't think these dealers have a "right" to sell Rolex's. If they don't like the terms set forth by Rolex, don't sell them.

[SteveGerencser]

And that's what we did. I was working for a Rolex AD for about 10 years, and they were an AD for decades. One day they got fed up with the 'rules' and dropped their AD status and started selling Rolex on the "secondary" market. These were never worn watches in original boxes and papers and in no way different than the watch we sold as an AD. Just second-hand. We suddenly had access to the inventory that our customers wanted when they wanted it, and told Rolex to get stuffed.

And yes, watching objectively well off people argue about luxury items as if it's important is always entertaining to me.

[talldatethrow]

Where did the sudden increase in inventory come from once they dropped their agreement with Rolex?

[malablaster]

Unless there’s some evidence that the legal system (which isn’t responsible for homelessness) is enforcing business rules instead of helping starving, cold children… then that’s a false dichotomy.