Type of refusal

Non-delivery in collectible assets

Non-delivery in this asset class rarely announces itself as a refusal. It arrives as a stall: the vault confirms the bars are allocated, the merchant confirms the case is bonded, the dealer confirms the watch is authenticated and boxed, the seller confirms the car is registered in your name. Payment cleared months earlier. Nothing moves. The counterparty cites customs, logistics, or an unspecified hold. That stall is O4, non-delivery, whether the asset is bullion, wine, a watch, or a vehicle held on your behalf.

The contractual mechanism used

The refusal is framed by the clause governing release, not the clause governing sale. A purchase or storage agreement for metals, wine, watches, or cars usually separates payment from physical release: delivery is due only after inspection, authentication, or a written release instruction from the custodian. Some agreements let the custodian delay release by citing force majeure, a customs formality, or unnamed operational reasons, with no fixed deadline attached. Others reserve title to the seller until a condition unconnected to payment is satisfied. The wording of that one clause, not the invoice, decides whether the counterparty is already in breach or still within its own terms. Recurring patterns in how this clause gets used are tracked separately in our notes on non-delivery refusals, and the general shape of the refusal type is set out on the O4 overview.

The document that decides the framing

Whether the claim is contractual or proprietary turns on one fact: are the goods ascertained. Specific serial-numbered bars, a named case of bottles, a watch by movement number, a car by VIN, these can support a claim to the thing itself, not just to its value. A claim over an unallocated pool, a generic vintage, or a model without a fixed unit usually stays contractual, a claim for damages or specific performance rather than ownership. The storage or purchase agreement, read against the delivery order and any inventory record, settles which framing applies. General exposure by asset type is mapped on the tangible assets page, and a recent example of how this plays out abroad is covered in this account of a foreign delivery failure.

The cross-border question

Enforcement has to go where the goods sit or where the counterparty holds assets, not where the contract was signed or where you live. A vault in Zurich, a bonded warehouse in London, and a dealer's registered office in a third country can each pull the case in a different direction. Jurisdiction-specific detail for these two locations is set out separately for Switzerland and for the UK; other locations require the same check before any step is taken. Whether an interim measure can freeze the asset before it disappears from the vault or the forecourt depends on the file, not on the asset class in the abstract. This firm does not charge on a contingency basis for this work, and its registration can be checked against the public register explained on how to verify a law firm. Where the dispute is better framed as a delivery or refund claim than a recognition question, that route is described on the refund and delivery claims page.