Chip discovered AFTER purchase

[fire&ice]

Date: 3/8/2005 12:45:33 PM
Author: sjz
Hi Hannah,

As far as the issue of setting the stone...perhaps the setters who''ve declined are worried about liability for damage to the stone? Especially in light of the way you feel about the vendor who sold you the stone. Maybe they don''t want to be painted with the same brush if something were to go wrong in the setting of the stone, they may not want to be held liable in conjuctinon with the vendor. Do you get my point? Have you considered having the vendor who sold you the stone in the first place do the setting? Is that an option? If so, I would ask that he set the stone at no additional charge to you, as well as guarantee the stone against damage during the setting process. And be sure to get it all in WRITING so that you have something to fall back on if things go wrong. At least that''s the avenue I would pursue at this stage.

At the end of the day, this is precisely how the whole problem arose. The setter appears to set into motion a chicken little perspective. And, would having the initial jeweler/Tony overseeing he setting be an option for you?

Currently, I''m sure you have a bad taste in your mouth about the whole transaction. But - take a step back - you bought a very nice stone at a VERY good price (even given the current stats 1.3 stones F/VS1 are trading for *more* than what you paid). You mentioned you looked at several stones. You stated that this one was *the* one. I would be inclined not to throw the baby out with the bath water. But, I wouldn''t have an issue with a chip which can only be seen under 10x *after* looking at it 60x. Setting princess cuts have always been an issue - you would probably receive the same response if your girdle was too thin or a feather came close to the surface.

Good luck with whatever avenue you take. I think you have to look at the big picture. Has the dealer offered anything?

 

[Hannahsb21]

I totally agree with looking at the big picture. In reality, the fact that we can afford to spend that much on a daimond of all things and that I got exactly the one I waned is pretty lucky. I walked through Walmart the other day and they had engagement rings for $99.

When Tony found out about the chip he instantly, without knowing anything about it offered to polish it out. I mean without even blinking. This is nice thing to offer and on some level fair, but my gut said this doesn''t feel right. And my mind said if it is such a small ordeal and makes so little difference, why not just take it back and polish it for yourself. It is a pretty desireble cut and size, I wouldn''t imagine it would be hard to sell. He then said well no because it changes the fire and value of the stone, and I said exactly, thats why I want to return it, no I''ll just polishi it, well if it is a just then, yada yada yada. And that is sort of the circle we ended up in.

So to his credit, he did offer to polish the stone but that was something niether Dan nor I were comfortable with, especially not Dan. I asked if he would let me tade up as the receipt states and he reminded us at purchase or if we would find another diamond of similar size and equal color but he said no. (I would have had BJ Caldwells be my second opinion on the second stone.) I also asked if I did end up having it recut by the jeweler of my choice, which is fair that I choose for my own piece of mind, and also he said no.

I did try and work with him. And i know that really, my options are good, but still feel that I shouldn''t have to deal with this and would much rather start over with a fresh stone. But of course, let''s not toss the baby out with the bath water. Excellent point.

 

[sparklish]

Date: 3/8/2005 1:45

4 PM
Author: crankydave
Date: 3/8/2005 1:11:25 PM

Based upon your intrepretation of what the law is you described in you first paragraph, yes you did.

Dude, I'm a law student and I know the difference between giving legal advice and not giving it. Telling someone they "may" have legal rights is not giving legal advice. Saying that a description of the law is not correct is also not advice. I never said definitively that Hannah does or doesn't have a case. The guy I referred to, who discussed the UCC, was also cautious to note that he wasn't giving legal advice and was not a lawyer, so calling that post valid is also not giving legal advice.

Anyway I think the point here is to help Hannah and not to bicker, so I won't clutter this thread further. Good luck Hannah - I reiterate my personal recommendation to see a lawyer and find out if there's anything you can do.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 3/8/2005 2:38:37 PM
; It is a pretty desireble cut and size, I wouldn''t imagine it would be hard to sell. He then said well no because it changes the fire and value of the stone, and I said exactly, thats why I want to return it, no I''ll just polishi it, well if it is a just then, yada yada yada. And that is sort of the circle we ended up in.

, but still feel that I shouldn''t have to deal with this and would much rather start over with a fresh stone

I can''t understand why he dug his heels in. Sounds like he did & sometimes when that happens people can become an immovable object. Are you still talking to him? I''m a big believer in trying to resolve things amoungst the parties.

Your right, it''s a desireable cut, size AND specs. That''s precisely my point. You may not be able to find a "fresh stone" that fits your bill and price point.

Something to consider - he may be financially unable to take back the stone. He sells the stone for 7500 or so & then he may have bought something else for inventory at the trade show. Tuscon is a big deal as I recall. In other words, he may not be able to refund your money. If he is not a regular "diamond dealer", he may not have access to another stone. All of this is not your problem - just an explaination as to what may be going on behind the scenes.

Given all what transpired - I think it would be prudent to send it to an expert cutter (whoever that may be) to examine the stone & precisely give you an estimate to polish/cut the stone & an expectation of loss of carat weight. In the meantime, find someone who will set the stone if you don''t polish out the "chip".

Once married, you will realize that''s not the only imperfection in your marriage, partner, etc. A little polishing can help; but, you can''t recut your mate.

 

[Sashabella]

It sounds like you are saying the receipts allows you to trade in and now he is refusing to honour the terms of the receipt. Is this correct?

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 3/8/2005 2:51:22 PM
Author: sparklish

Date: 3/8/2005 1:45

4 PM
Author: crankydave
Date: 3/8/2005 1:11:25 PM

Based upon your intrepretation of what the law is you described in you first paragraph, yes you did.

Dude, I''m a law student and I know the difference between giving legal advice and not giving it. Telling someone they ''may'' have legal rights is not giving legal advice. Saying that a description of the law is not correct is also not advice. I never said definitively that Hannah does or doesn''t have a case. The guy I referred to, who discussed the UCC, was also cautious to note that he wasn''t giving legal advice and was not a lawyer, so calling that post valid is also not giving legal advice.

Anyway I think the point here is to help Hannah and not to bicker, so I won''t clutter this thread further. Good luck Hannah - I reiterate my personal recommendation to see a lawyer and find out if there''s anything you can do.

Sparklish....

It''s me Rockdoc.. I am the one who wrote the posts about the UCC.

Thank you for clarifying my original post about giving legal advice. Now we have two people who are in the legal field, that dissent with the Armchair, unresearched conclusions being made on the thread, which unfortunately misinforms Hannah and Dan ( the consumers).

It would certainly be prudent for those offering advice on what to do would thoroughly research their answers, before responding about what the law says and what it doesn''t.

This is a complex issue, but if more of the respondents spent time on the legal research sites, before instead of just coming up with theories of value loss, without the training, Hannah would be much better advised.

I certainly am not objectionable to correction in my post, but NO ONE has taken the time to research what I''ve written. I have a lot of years of experience as an expert witness in both gemological and valuation litigation support.

There is just "tons" of legal opinion written about the issues of Express and Implied Warranty, as well as Benefit of the Bargain issues, and purchaser expectations based on the representation of the seller and reasonable expectation of a purchaser.

Courts across the US have addressed these issues a lot, and if anyone bothered to research them, they''d be offering different suggestions.

Rockdoc

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/8/2005 3:45:29 PM
Author: RockDoc

It would certainly be prudent for those offering advice on what to do would thoroughly research their answers, before responding about what the law says and what it doesn't.

And it would be equally prudent if *you* would read posts more thoroughly before asserting that those posts are being representated as interpretation of any law----when, in fact, they are not.

This is a complex issue, but if more of the respondents spent time on the legal research sites, before instead of just coming up with theories of value loss, without the training, Hannah would be much better advised.

Excuse me? I'm not offering what I think the LAW is.....and I never was. I was offering what my opinions were......as were several other "armchair" folks.

Not everyone is focused on the legal aspect as you and a few others are. If you wish to focus that way, completely fine. BUT.....opinions on this thread are NOT limited to "legal" ones.

There are MANY different perspectives in this world. Some are legal, some are moral, some are ethical, etc. Just because you choose to focus on the legal aspect doesn't mean it's the *only* aspect.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 3/8/2005 3:55:47 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 3/8/2005 3:45:29 PM
Author: RockDoc

It would certainly be prudent for those offering advice on what to do would thoroughly research their answers, before responding about what the law says and what it doesn''t.

And it would be equally prudent if *you* would read posts more thoroughly before asserting that those posts are being representated as interpretation of any law----when, in fact, they are not.

This is a complex issue, but if more of the respondents spent time on the legal research sites, before instead of just coming up with theories of value loss, without the training, Hannah would be much better advised.

Excuse me? I''m not offering what I think the LAW is.....and I never was. I was offering what my opinions were......as were several other ''armchair'' folks.

Not everyone is focused on the legal aspect as you and a few others are. If you wish to focus that way, completely fine. BUT.....opinions on this thread are NOT limited to ''legal'' ones.

There are MANY different perspectives in this world. Some are legal, some are moral, some are ethical, etc. Just because you choose to focus on the legal aspect doesn''t mean it''s the *only* aspect.

The following is what I was referring to.


The fact that people can now see the defect at 10X after it was discoverd at 60X has no legal bearing on the grading of a diamond at 10X. PERIOD.

You have ZERO legall right to return a diamond, or take action, based on the facts of this case.

Your personal disappointment does not mean that a vendor has to take a diamond back.


________________________

What is this opinion based on? Statue Law , Case Law or opinion?

It certainly doesn''t appear that the writer''s conclusion(s) are based on research.

Rockdoc

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 3/8/2005 3:55:47 PM

Not everyone is focused on the legal aspect as you and a few others are. If you wish to focus that way, completely fine. BUT.....opinions on this thread are NOT limited to ''legal'' ones.

There are MANY different perspectives in this world. Some are legal, some are moral, some are ethical, etc. Just because you choose to focus on the legal aspect doesn''t mean it''s the *only* aspect.

And, I''ve always been advised to have the parties involved *try* to come to some conflict resolution *prior* legal recourse.

The posters seem reasonable. I think they should still talk.

And, yes Al, lots of different perspecitives.

 

[pyramid]

Date: 3/8/2005 3:45:29 PM
Author: RockDoc

Date: 3/8/2005 2:51:22 PM
Author: sparklish

Date: 3/8/2005 1:45

4 PM
Author: crankydave
Date: 3/8/2005 1:11:25 PM

Based upon your intrepretation of what the law is you described in you first paragraph, yes you did.

Dude, I'm a law student and I know the difference between giving legal advice and not giving it. Telling someone they 'may' have legal rights is not giving legal advice. Saying that a description of the law is not correct is also not advice. I never said definitively that Hannah does or doesn't have a case. The guy I referred to, who discussed the UCC, was also cautious to note that he wasn't giving legal advice and was not a lawyer, so calling that post valid is also not giving legal advice.

Anyway I think the point here is to help Hannah and not to bicker, so I won't clutter this thread further. Good luck Hannah - I reiterate my personal recommendation to see a lawyer and find out if there's anything you can do.

Sparklish....

It's me Rockdoc.. I am the one who wrote the posts about the UCC.

Thank you for clarifying my original post about giving legal advice. Now we have two people who are in the legal field, that dissent with the Armchair, unresearched conclusions being made on the thread, which unfortunately misinforms Hannah and Dan ( the consumers).

It would certainly be prudent for those offering advice on what to do would thoroughly research their answers, before responding about what the law says and what it doesn't.

This is a complex issue, but if more of the respondents spent time on the legal research sites, before instead of just coming up with theories of value loss, without the training, Hannah would be much better advised.

I certainly am not objectionable to correction in my post, but NO ONE has taken the time to research what I've written. I have a lot of years of experience as an expert witness in both gemological and valuation litigation support.

There is just 'tons' of legal opinion written about the issues of Express and Implied Warranty, as well as Benefit of the Bargain issues, and purchaser expectations based on the representation of the seller and reasonable expectation of a purchaser.

Courts across the US have addressed these issues a lot, and if anyone bothered to research them, they'd be offering different suggestions.

Rockdoc

Without giving legal advice, any idea as to what would be seen as 'REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF A PURCHASER' in this case?

 

[sjz]

Date: 3/8/2005 3:31:34 PM
Author: Sashabella
It sounds like you are saying the receipts allows you to trade in and now he is refusing to honour the terms of the receipt. Is this correct?

The trade in policy of this vendor may state that the they have to spend a certain percentage more than the original purchase price. That is what most of my trade in agreements state. I have only one that states I can trade in for a price minimally larger than my original purchase price. From Hannah''s posts I''m getting the impression that she wants the vendor to basically allow her to exchange the flawed stone for something of equal or similar quality. That would probably mean that she is not "trading in" the stone but mearly exchanging it. To my thinking (no legal basis for my opinion, but only that of an experienced consumer) What she is asking for is either a refund or an exchange. I haven''t seen anything in her posts to indicate that he gave her any sort of reciept that stated refund or exchange terms, only a trade in allowance of some type. It might be helpful for those of us who are trying to help her decide upon a course of action (legally or otherwise) to know exactly what her guarantee stated, as well as her reciept. I didn''t think that someone would buy a diamond or anything else for that amount of money without some type of paperwork specifically from the vendor. I''m not talking about any lab certifications. I''m referring to warranties, guarantees, proof of purchase, and that sort of thing.

 

[Hannahsb21]

I am not a legal expert but Nancy said that I have a great case and without a doubt, her opinion is that we would win. One of the problems with this is that small claims court is limited to $5,000, bad deal for us.

However, I would be pretty careful before I went that far and do whatever I could to find resolution without getting lawyers and going to court.

 

[sjz]

Date: 3/8/2005 4:39:32 PM
Author: Hannahsb21
I am not a legal expert but Nancy said that I have a great case and without a doubt, her opinion is that we would win. One of the problems with this is that small claims court is limited to $5,000, bad deal for us.

However, I would be pretty careful before I went that far and do whatever I could to find resolution without getting lawyers and going to court.

I think that you could easily spend more than the stone is worth on legal fees associated with taking this vendor to court. For what it''s worth, it sounds like he''s willing to work with you to some extent. Have you specifically and flat out told him what you want? In a non-confrtontational manner? Sometimes that''s all it takes. I don''t know if you were accusatory or not when you went back with your complaint, but IF you were, that might have set the tone for his response to you.

You might have to swallow your pride to a small degree, and approach this whole situation from a different perspective. The vendor may be thinking you are suffering from a bad case of buyer''s remorse and using this flaw as a way out of your purchase. Or that you simply changed your mind about the stone. You stated earlier that you loved the stone when you first saw it, and you hadn''t seen another that suited you as well. Do you no longer feel that way? Is the chip in the stone something you simply can''t live with? I know how you feel...you wouldn''t have purchased the stone (or at least you wouldn''t have paid as much as you did) had you known about the chip. I can fully understand, since I tend to be a perfectionist. But if the chip is something that I can''t see with my naked eye, or even with 10x magnification, I think I could learn to live with it. Especially if you are able to find someone who feels confident enough to set the stone for you.

Or were you looking at this stone as an investment more than a sentimental token or a fashion statement? If so, the decreased value of the stone might be a good reason for you to continue to pursue some sort of resolution of the situation. I honestly don''t think Tony tried to rip you off, but at this point he is looking out for number one. That is unfortunate for you, but that''s life. I can assure you, in my lifetime I''ve learned more than one lesson in consumerism that cost me a lot more in dollars than you have spent, and more in frustration than anyone could put a price on.

 

[sparklish]

Just keep in mind seeing a lawyer doesn't mean hiring her for a court. You could just go for an appointment and get summary advice on what to say in your future correspondence/discussions with Tony. Being aware of your legal rights is pretty important and only a lawyer can tell you that. Or, a demand letter on a lawyer's letterhead may carry more weight than you talking directly. You might try calling a local law school and seeing if they have a student legal advice program or can refer you.

*The above is a personal suggestion only and not intended to be legal advice.*

 

[Hannahsb21]

Tony said to keep the receipt and he gives full trade in, virtually an exchange, but I didn''t have any intention of ever changing it. The receipt has thorough verbage protecting him but doesn''t talk about the trade in. He has already said he won''t trade it in anyways.

Again, our approach was very calm as we were friends with the guy, and he inturn was very calm, but didn''t offer us what we were interested in. It never really escalated to screaming, but it was clear we were on opposite sides of the fence and each leary of the other in fear of losing out in some way.

 

[sjz]

Date: 3/8/2005 5:19:39 PM
Author: Hannahsb21
Tony said to keep the receipt and he gives full trade in, virtually an exchange, but I didn't have any intention of ever changing it. The receipt has thorough verbage protecting him but doesn't talk about the trade in. He has already said he won't trade it in anyways.

Again, our approach was very calm as we were friends with the guy, and he inturn was very calm, but didn't offer us what we were interested in. It never really escalated to screaming, but it was clear we were on opposite sides of the fence and each leary of the other in fear of losing out in some way.

I'm not trying to quibble with you, but a trade-in is not "virtually an exchange". Most sellers who offer a "trade -in" actually mean "trade-up" and expect you to spend more (sometimes substantially more) than your original purchase price when you trade the ring. That's how they make their money. I take it, though, that the trade-in policy was a verbal one, and that you have nothing in writing? What about an exchange or refund policy? Anything in writing there, either?

If you mean he didn't offer you what you were interested in as meaning a refund or another, similar quality diamond for the same price, I understand. But he did offer to polish the chip for you, so you can't claim that he refused to negotiate with you. It sounds like you both are in a stand off over the deal now. Have you asked Tony if there is another option, other than polishing the stone? Put the ball in his court. Let him know you expect him to do SOMETHING to rectify this situation. But also don't give him the impression that you are inflexible, or he's going to be inflexible as well. Have you given any thought to the idea I mentioned in a previous post of having Tony set the stone himself? Or maybe asking him for a price adjustment instead of a full refund or exchange? Those might be things he'd be willing to negotiate if you are willing to agree to them. Do a little homework, and find out what the average price of a diamond of the same grade and quality that your stone is "bumped down" to would be. If it is substantially less than what you paid for your stone, you at least have a starting point to negotiate a price adjustment. Just going in cold asking for your money back or a different stone is like jumping straight to the finish line in a race. Get out of the starting gate first by getting Tony into negotiations first (making sure you are backed up with as much documentation as you can possibly get) and go from there. Who knows, in the end you may end up getting something pretty close to what you want, without lawyers and hard feelings. I hope so anyway.

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Everyone..

In that a lot of readers seem to misunderstand the use of higher magnification in diamonds, I contact the GIA library to see if they had any procedures written about examining for clarity grading.

I wanted to report to everyone the results of the research and post links directly that are unedited from GIA. (There are additional articles about various subjects in those links as well that readers may want to explore). Please respect GIA intellectual and copyright ownership rights in distributing or copying these articles.

In the initial email to me - they disclose that the lab graders, do use higher power. They don''t in the attached links specify an exact power that is needed, as it is controlled by individual ability and done as needed in the grader''s judgment.

To cliarify my post about 60x - I only see the need for that kind of power very occasionally. Grading at 10x with a loupe is the final confirmation as described in the linked articles below.

I would encourage everyone who does have a stone to re-examine it with their loupe using the techniques outlined in the two links, particularly paying attention to the second one.

Darkfield illumination is a very important condition to have when examining a stone.

Comment anyone?

Hope this helps

Rockdoc






Dear Bill:

When grading diamonds, it is true that our diamond graders use a power higher than 10X to study the type of inclusion it could be. It is possible the grader could examine the stone at a power even up to the limit of the magnification of the microscope. This magnification could be necessary to determine if the inclusion would impact durability. But the inclusion must be able to be seen at 10X to be called. If a trained grader cannot see the clarity characteristic at 10X, it does not affect the clarity grade.

Here are two more links with more detailed information:

http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/issue/2798/824/insider_newsletter_details.cfm#1

http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/issue/2798/1782/insider_newsletter_details.cfm#4

Thank you for contacting the GIA library. For future reference assistance, you can contact the Library by telephone (800-421-7250, ext. 4046 or 4068; 760-603-4046 or 603-406; fax (760-603-4256) or e-mail ([email protected]).

Sincerely,

Michael Daligdig

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/9/2005 6:38:11 PM
Author: RockDoc

Comment anyone?

Yes, two.

But the inclusion must be able to be seen at 10X to be called. If a trained grader cannot see the clarity characteristic at 10X (Al''s note: even after seeing it at higher mag), it does not affect the clarity grade.

First comment: This is what has been offered here all along. The grading report is dependent on ONLY that which can be seen at 10x mag, and if it cannot be seen at 10x mag, it doesn''t affect the clarity grade.

Second comment: This is great info.....but it is *one* lab''s stated procedure (and so happens not to be the lab which graded the stone in question.)

It would be interesting to know what other labs'' grading policies are and what consistencies/discrepancies may exist among them procedurally.

 

[fire&ice]

Yes, but if I understood the poster correctly - once identified under 60x - the flaw could be seen under 10x. Now what?

This is a tough one. I hope the poster keeps us posted as to what transpires.

 

[Hannahsb21]

I believe when diamonds are appraised it is three appraisers who look at it, if they can''t agree, then it goes to a completely different group of people. In this, we agree that there is human disgretion and results may vary.

So I didn''t see it, Dan didn''t see it, Tony claims to have never seen it, but Nancy did. It is pretty obvious why we didn''t see it, totally rerasonable to miss for an untrained eye. However, Tony may have been in a rush, not as thorough, or who knows, but Nancy sees it. So it is definately visible at 10x, by some.

I must not be writing very clearly because it is so hard for me to imagine that a jeweler or a GIA grader would consider this as not affecting the stone, because it clearly does. Of course you haven''t seen the report, which I will hopefull get online, but it is very surely affecting the stone. (and yes the stone is EGL)

 

[aljdewey]

At this point, I'm left wondering what the goal is here in continuing. This scenario has been thoroughly hashed out at this point. I don't know what else could be added to bring bearing on this situation.

You've recounted many time the steps involved from purchase up to this point, and several have offered thoughts and opinions. There has been lively debate.
What is it that hasn't been covered?

Here is the situation presently: no one here has seen or can see this stone. We can only offer opinions on the "data" of the issue, and that's been done extensively already. No, not everyone agrees with your viewpoint on the situation, but that doesn't mean you aren't writing clearly. It just means that not everyone agrees. That doesn't make you right or wrong; it just means there are a variety of viewpoints.

For your purposes, the only one that should matter is your appraiser. You've taken it to your appraiser, and she has provided an opinion that you are satisfied with.

What else do you want people to say that they haven't said already? What is it that you're looking to hear?

No amount of discussion is going to change where you are right now. You have a stone in hand. Your choices are 1) try to have it set, 2) cut/repolish it and live with the altered stone, 3) pursue the seller legally, 4) pursue an alternate solution with the seller. 5) Any other option I may not have thought of that might exist.

Nothing we say here changes where you are. The ball is in your court and it's your decision what you do from here.

 

[Hannahsb21]

I haven''t posted anything that wasn''t a response to someone in days. I am not looking for anything, my point was that the same questions continue to come up and that is what I addressed as simply as I could. I don''t expect everyone to agree with me nor did I ever suggest they should. It''s pretty clear that the issue has been thoroughly reviewed and I have no problem with it being exhausted, but think that it is appropriate to respond if someone asks something.

 

[sjz]

Date: 3/10/2005 10

7

5 PM
Author: Hannahsb21
I haven''t posted anything that wasn''t a response to someone in days. I am not looking for anything, my point was that the same questions continue to come up and that is what I addressed as simply as I could. I don''t expect everyone to agree with me nor did I ever suggest they should. It''s pretty clear that the issue has been thoroughly reviewed and I have no problem with it being exhausted, but think that it is appropriate to respond if someone asks something.

I hope you will continue to keep us all updated. I have become very interested in the outcome of your situation. I wish you luck, and I hope you get this whole thing resolved in a way that makes you happy!

 

[deny]

I also hope you keep us informed of the outcome. We can all learn something from it. I appreciate how you stayed level headed thoughout all the pages of posts here, especially when it could have gotten hot and heavy. You stayed the course to get the information you needed regarding your OP. Remain that way with your pursuit, and I know you will have the outcome you and your fiance both desire.
Good luck!

 

[DiamondExpert]

Thank you all - and good night

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

[strmrdr]

Iv been following this and my bottom line is that 2 or 3 jewelers have said they wouldnt set the diamond if im reading this right.
What good is a diamond that cant be set by someone readily available to the person who bought it?
On those grounds alone a refund or exchange is in order.
60X, 30x, 20x, 10x, 5x, or 0x it matters not one bit if a jewleler wont set it because of duribilty concerns.

 

[Kaleigh]

Well said strmrdr!!

 

[thetrial]

Good luck to you and I hope you have satisfactory resolution in this matter. Boy there''s some hateful people around here.

 

[Hannahsb21]

Hi Pricescope Users!

I know I have been dormant for a while but wanted to again thank everyone for their input and let you know that we may well be reaching a resolution soon. I didn''t foreget to let you know how it turned out and it didn''t fade away, the process just takes some time. I will get back online once this is over and post as many relevant documents as I can. Hope you all are well.

Best
Hannah

 

[RockDoc]

RE HI Hannah

Glad to hear you''re making some progress.. and good that you''ve come back to the Pet Rock Family here, to give us an update/head''s up.


Sure we didn''t forget you, and many of are concerned with how you are faring.


Rockdoc