Dubai court orders man to pay Dh1.83m for unpaid luxury watches

Dubai: An Arab man has been ordered to pay $500,000 (Dh1.83 million) to a luxury goods company after failing to pay for two high-end wristwatches he received under formal sales agreements.

In its ruling, the Dubai Court of First Instance found that the defendant took delivery of a Patek Philippe and a Rolex in July 2024 but failed to honour his contractual obligation to pay their full value within the agreed timeframe, despite repeated informal and legal demands.

According to Emarat Al Youm, the company entered into two separate sales contracts with the defendant, setting the total purchase price at $500,000, payable within one month. The watches were handed over upon execution of the agreements.

The claimant told the court that the buyer failed to make payment despite several attempts to reach an amicable settlement, leaving it with no option but to pursue legal action.

To support its case, the company submitted documentary evidence, including a signed private acknowledgment in which the defendant confirmed receipt of the watches in trust, copies of the two sales contracts, and screenshots of WhatsApp messages exchanged between the parties discussing the transaction.

While the claimant’s legal representative attended the hearings, the defendant failed to appear despite being duly notified. The court therefore proceeded in his absence in accordance with procedural law.

In its reasoning, the court stressed that under the UAE Civil Transactions Law, contracts are binding and must be performed in good faith. It added that trust arrangements impose a clear obligation on the recipient to return the property or its value upon demand.

The court ruled that the signed acknowledgment constituted valid legal proof, particularly as the defendant neither disputed its authenticity nor provided evidence of payment. It ordered him to pay the full amount claimed.

The court rejected the company’s request for 9 per cent interest, citing the absence of a specific agreement, and instead awarded 5 per cent annual interest from the date the lawsuit was filed until full payment. It also dismissed the request for legal fees, noting the claimant was represented by a legal agent rather than a licensed lawyer.