Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity
  • Pricescope Upgrade/Maintenance Is Complete.

    We still have a few things to iron out. If you see any bugs, issues or have any concerns, let us know here in this discussion.

Conned on ebay. I quit!

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
The stone was misrepresented and because it was misrepresented the contract to buy it is null and void. I don't know why some people have such a hard time understanding that the seller has an obligation not to misrepresent stones and to give full refunds when a stone turns out to have been misrepresented.

A very small group of PS posts are saying things like: you never could have bought it for that price, it was a fair price for something it wasn't sold as, something else that was represented as something else sold at a similar price, etc. Irrelevant points, all, to the contract Kelpie had with RH.

The seller didn't deliver what she said she would. "It can happen to anybody" is also irrelevant.

Give the money back, RH. The sale was contingent upon the lab saying the stone was what you said it was. The lab said otherwise. It's not your money to keep.
 

colormyworld

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,172
Whether the stone was misrepresented or not is irrelevant at this point. Why should a seller be required to accept back a stone that is not in the same condition as it was sent out? From what I have read. This is exactly why we insure an item when shipping.
 

T L

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
22,868
This thread has been full of assumptions, speculation, and otherwise. No one knows the full extent of the truth except for RH, Kelpie and AGL. Yes, the stone was not advertised what it was supposed to be, but it was supposedly not returned in its proper condition either. Both sides have axes to grind here and may need to resolve this problem outside of this forum with the proper legal authorities.

I will have to say in RH's defense, I was taken aback at Kelpie wishing her a slow painful death in her first post. I'm really shocked no one noticed that, or seemed to care. Although I feel bad for anyone who loses their money in a transaction, and I am such a person who has lost lots of money through my years of gem collecting with unscrupulous sellers, I would never wish death on them.

I think Pricescope should stay out of this matter from now on. It's really none of our business, it's between Kelpie and RH. Kelpie had every right to report what she felt was a bad customer service experience, but I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread. It's now up to Kelpie and RH to try to resolve this situation. I truly hope they can come to an amicable conclusion despite the words and assumptions thrown around in this thread.
 

movie zombie

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
11,879
TL|1318083225|3035936 said:
This thread has been full of assumptions, speculation, and otherwise. No one knows the full extent of the truth except for RH, Kelpie and AGL. Yes, the stone was not advertised what it was supposed to be, but it was supposedly not returned in its proper condition either. Both sides have axes to grind here and may need to resolve this problem outside of this forum with the proper legal authorities.

I will have to say in RH's defense, I was taken aback at Kelpie wishing her a slow painful death in her first post. I'm really shocked no one noticed that, or seemed to care. Although I feel bad for anyone who loses their money in a transaction, and I am such a person who has lost lots of money through my years of gem collecting with unscrupulous sellers, I would never wish death on them.

I think Pricescope should stay out of this matter from now on. It's really none of our business, it's between Kelpie and RH. Kelpie had every right to report what she felt was a bad customer service experience, but I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread. It's now up to Kelpie and RH to try to resolve this situation. I truly hope they can come to an amicable conclusion despite the words and assumptions thrown around in this thread.

very well stated. i have not commented until now but have read most of the thread.....and i'm surprised it has gone to 10 pages.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
colormyworld|1318073807|3035881 said:
Whether the stone was misrepresented or not is irrelevant at this point. Why should a seller be required to accept back a stone that is not in the same condition as it was sent out? From what I have read. This is exactly why we insure an item when shipping.
Exactly, what I said in my post, so I was taken a back when the next poster thought I had an "interesting" recollection of the facts. And this brings up the question if the op ever contacted the lab. Because the stone did not end up being expensive, did they just carelessly package it up and ship it out? Where is their liability in this?
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
TL|1318083225|3035936 said:
This thread has been full of assumptions, speculation, and otherwise. No one knows the full extent of the truth except for RH, Kelpie and AGL. Yes, the stone was not advertised what it was supposed to be, but it was supposedly not returned in its proper condition either. Both sides have axes to grind here and may need to resolve this problem outside of this forum with the proper legal authorities.

I will have to say in RH's defense, I was taken aback at Kelpie wishing her a slow painful death in her first post. I'm really shocked no one noticed that, or seemed to care. Although I feel bad for anyone who loses their money in a transaction, and I am such a person who has lost lots of money through my years of gem collecting with unscrupulous sellers, I would never wish death on them.

I think Pricescope should stay out of this matter from now on. It's really none of our business, it's between Kelpie and RH. Kelpie had every right to report what she felt was a bad customer service experience, but I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread. It's now up to Kelpie and RH to try to resolve this situation. I truly hope they can come to an amicable conclusion despite the words and assumptions thrown around in this thread.
100% agree. Excellent post. And to answer your question, I did not see the original comment where the OP wished RH dead or I would have commented on it as well. Calling her a fraud and laying her personal business out here was bad enough, but that was definitely over the top.

And i do hope they can resolve this issue to their mutual satisfaction.
 

Laila619

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
11,533
colormyworld|1318073807|3035881 said:
Whether the stone was misrepresented or not is irrelevant at this point. Why should a seller be required to accept back a stone that is not in the same condition as it was sent out? From what I have read. This is exactly why we insure an item when shipping.
That's why I don't understand why the insurance claim hasn't been filed. Should RH now have a damaged stone with no compensation?

I think if Kelpie had filed the claim, this would have gone differently. I'm NOT saying this is Kelpie's fault at all--she is absolutely entitled to her refund. But RH is also entitled to her insurance claim for a damaged stone that was not damaged when it was first sent out.
 

Imdanny

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
6,186
To those of you who are saying that Kelpie should file an insurance claim (and I think the facts speak to Kelpie deserving a full and immediate refund, myself, the contingency of the lab verifying RH's representation was the essence of the contract, from anything I've been able to read in this thread) I'm curious about how you think this might happen.

RH sent the packing materials and the stone separately through the mail to Kelpie (whether Kelpie accepted them or not, and for the record I wouldn't have; I would not accept that I was the owner as RH explicitly said about Kelpie). So, how is the lab supposed to make any kind of determination about what was allegedly their mishandling? At this point, the packaging and the stone have been separated and they've both been mailed again. How is the lab (or their insurance company) supposed to make head or tails of this now?
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
Imdanny|1318122265|3036264 said:
To those of you who are saying that Kelpie should file an insurance claim (and I think the facts speak to Kelpie deserving a full and immediate refund, myself, the contingency of the lab verifying RH's representation was the essence of the contract, from anything I've been able to read in this thread) I'm curious about how you think this might happen.

RH sent the packing materials and the stone separately through the mail to Kelpie (whether Kelpie accepted them or not, and for the record I wouldn't have; I would not accept that I was the owner as RH explicitly said about Kelpie). So, how is the lab supposed to make any kind of determination about what was allegedly their mishandling? At this point, the packaging and the stone have been separated and they've both been mailed again. How is the lab (or their insurance company) supposed to make head or tails of this now?
+1

I fail to understand how the stone being misrepresented is immaterial! It was misrepresented and therefore the sale is null and void. Therefore a full refund is the only remedy. I'm certain (and Kelpie, please do correct me if I'm wrong) that once she has a refund, Kelpie would be the bigger person and assist RH in filing whatever claim is required (subject to it being an accurate reflection of the situation and not one that requires Kelpie to perjure herself). Something nobody has mentioned is that IF the stone left AGL in perfect condition, who knows when the damage occurred? It COULD have happened when RH was opening the package and dropped the stone, it COULD have happened in the post. This is an unknown and it may be that postal insurance shouldn't be claimed - at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.

As for Kelpie wishing RH dead? That's completely been taken out of context and if read again, Kelpie was referring to Karma. She was understandably upset. On the flip side, look at the veiled threats from RH and the accusations that we're all harrassing her! Neither are right but it reflects the anguish at the situtation.

I wonder how many of the posters vaguely supporting RH would feel happy if they were being refused an $800 refund if they thought they were in the right? Honestly ask yourself if you had sent back a misrepresented stone and then couldn't get a refund, how would you feel?
 

colormyworld

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,172
Imdanny|1318122265|3036264 said:
To those of you who are saying that Kelpie should file an insurance claim (and I think the facts speak to Kelpie deserving a full and immediate refund, myself, the contingency of the lab verifying RH's representation was the essence of the contract, from anything I've been able to read in this thread) I'm curious about how you think this might happen.

RH sent the packing materials and the stone separately through the mail to Kelpie (whether Kelpie accepted them or not, and for the record I wouldn't have; I would not accept that I was the owner as RH explicitly said about Kelpie). So, how is the lab supposed to make any kind of determination about what was allegedly their mishandling? At this point, the packaging and the stone have been separated and they've both been mailed again. How is the lab (or their insurance company) supposed to make head or tails of this now?


Are you saying the OP did not receive a tourmaline from Brazil. Perhaps even from the state of Paraiba in Brazil? Who are we to say the stone is not? I have read nothing to contradict that claim. Oh wait! The stone was sent to a lab and they confirmed it contained no copper.But I wonder what a copper bearing tourmaline from the state of Paraiba Brazil that looked like the stone in question would have sold for? Would it sell for 800 dollars? I don't think so! The stone IMO was under priced for what it was. Even though it contained no copper. Now if the asking price had been in the tens of thousands or even the thousands of dollars you may have a point but it was not. Kind of makes me wonder who was trying to pull a fast one on who. When we pay a premium price for a stone from a certain region be it a Burma ruby.Kashmir sapphire or Mahenge spinel. We expect the color to reflect the premium price we have paid. Not some intangible element that can not be seen with the human eye. With the stone in question I believe those terms were more then met.

Beyond that once the OP took delivery they are responsible for the condition of the stone until it arrives back to the vendor. That is why we buy insurance.
 

lelser

Shiny_Rock
Trade
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
261
But Colourmyworld, that's not the way the law works. You cannot say something is one thing, and then defend yourself when you're proven wrong by claiming that it was still a fair deal for the price and the buyer should have known. Under FTC rules that's completely illegal.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com
 

T L

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
22,868
LovingDiamonds|1318158710|3036389 said:
at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.
LD,
RH had stated earlier in this thread that she wanted Kelpie to file the claim first, then she would refund. She said she is afraid that Kelpie might pocket the money of the claim and the refund. Of course, if Kelpie files the claim first, and sends RH the claim money, then RH can pocket both Kelpie's refund and the claim money, but that is just a possibility in both cases. I'm not saying any of these scenarios will occur. However, there is some trust to be had on both sides here, and with their degraded business relationship, I'm not so sure that trust is there for either party. That is the conundrum.

I think it would be best for any seller, in future, to ship the stone themselves to the lab of choice, at their own expense, and if the gem comes back as what it claims to be, then the sale is finalized between the buyer an seller. In that case, if the stone was damaged on it's return to the seller, they could claim the insurance refund, and the buyer would just not have purchased the stone and the report. This thread is a prime example of when a buy/sell doesn't go correctly. I think it shows important lessons for anyone who wants to sell gems, or anything.

As for the "death" quote, you can read that how you wish, but I was really disturbed by it. I'm sorry. I have lost more money than $800 by very unscrupulous sellers. I know Kelpie must feel, but I was taken aback by that comment.
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
TL|1318177146|3036519 said:
LovingDiamonds|1318158710|3036389 said:
at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.
LD,
RH had stated earlier in this thread that she wanted Kelpie to file the claim first, then she would refund. She said she is afraid that Kelpie might pocket the money of the claim and the refund.
TL
I understand all the points you make but for RH to doubt Kelpie's credibility is outrageous. RH is the one that has shown no remorse and has not acted reasonably, sensibly or as a proper vendor would. Why on earth should Kelpie try to help RH unless RH is willing to refund? I wouldn't. I don't think RH has any right to expect anything at this point in time. If RH really wanted to resolve this issue and was worried that Kelpie wouldn't help with the claim, then she could always involve a neutral third party to hold the money on certain conditions. There are always ways around these issues.
 

colormyworld

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,172
lelser|1318176335|3036506 said:
But Colourmyworld, that's not the way the law works. You cannot say something is one thing, and then defend yourself when you're proven wrong by claiming that it was still a fair deal for the price and the buyer should have known. Under FTC rules that's completely illegal.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

Perhaps to us gem geeks but I don't think the common man or woman on the street would agree with you in this instance. Perhaps I am taking the notion of common law to far then?
 

T L

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
22,868
LovingDiamonds|1318178164|3036533 said:
TL|1318177146|3036519 said:
LovingDiamonds|1318158710|3036389 said:
at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.
LD,
RH had stated earlier in this thread that she wanted Kelpie to file the claim first, then she would refund. She said she is afraid that Kelpie might pocket the money of the claim and the refund.
TL
I understand all the points you make but for RH to doubt Kelpie's credibility is outrageous. RH is the one that has shown no remorse and has not acted reasonably, sensibly or as a proper vendor would. Why on earth should Kelpie try to help RH unless RH is willing to refund? I wouldn't. I don't think RH has any right to expect anything at this point in time. If RH really wanted to resolve this issue and was worried that Kelpie wouldn't help with the claim, then she could always involve a neutral third party to hold the money on certain conditions. There are always ways around these issues.
LD,
I don't know Kelpie, I have no idea what her credibility is, and I don't know RH's credibility either, as I have never been a customer of hers. You see, that is where speculation on a person is making this thread nose dive into territory that I don't think it should go into . Your idea of having a neutral third party to hold on to the money is a good idea though. It may help to resolve this, but this thread has gone so far down the rabbit hole, that I don't even know if that will help. This thread is so very very sad on many levels.
 

Aoife

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
1,779
colormyworld|1318178422|3036536 said:
lelser|1318176335|3036506 said:
But Colourmyworld, that's not the way the law works. You cannot say something is one thing, and then defend yourself when you're proven wrong by claiming that it was still a fair deal for the price and the buyer should have known. Under FTC rules that's completely illegal.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

Perhaps to us gem geeks but I don't think the common man or woman on the street would agree with you in this instance. Perhaps I am taking the notion of common law to far then?
This actually has nothing to do with whether or not we are gem geeks. An item (gems, cereal, handbags) that is advertised/represented as being A can't be B, even if B is worth the same as A, or "nearly as good as A" because that is not what the contract (sale) was for. The item was misrepresented, and the law is very clear on that, especially if the seller is presenting him or herself as a professional, and especially if the seller has explicitly stated that s/he will refund the money if the item isn't what she says it is--which, by the way, also becomes part of the contract. So, in this case, the seller is in violation of at least 2 parts of the contract. That is part of my frustration with some of the posts on this thread, because the basic conflict is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the law governing transactions. Everything else is a distraction, and, as I have said before, irrelevant to the main issue.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
LovingDiamonds|1318158710|3036389 said:
Imdanny|1318122265|3036264 said:
To those of you who are saying that Kelpie should file an insurance claim (and I think the facts speak to Kelpie deserving a full and immediate refund, myself, the contingency of the lab verifying RH's representation was the essence of the contract, from anything I've been able to read in this thread) I'm curious about how you think this might happen.

RH sent the packing materials and the stone separately through the mail to Kelpie (whether Kelpie accepted them or not, and for the record I wouldn't have; I would not accept that I was the owner as RH explicitly said about Kelpie). So, how is the lab supposed to make any kind of determination about what was allegedly their mishandling? At this point, the packaging and the stone have been separated and they've both been mailed again. How is the lab (or their insurance company) supposed to make head or tails of this now?
+1

I fail to understand how the stone being misrepresented is immaterial! It was misrepresented and therefore the sale is null and void. Therefore a full refund is the only remedy. I'm certain (and Kelpie, please do correct me if I'm wrong) that once she has a refund, Kelpie would be the bigger person and assist RH in filing whatever claim is required (subject to it being an accurate reflection of the situation and not one that requires Kelpie to perjure herself). As for Kelpie wishing RH dead? That's completely been taken out of context and if read again, Kelpie was referring to Karma. She was understandably Something nobody has mentioned is that IF the stone left AGL in perfect condition, who knows when the damage occurred? It COULD have happened when RH was opening the package and dropped the stone, it COULD have happened in the post. This is an unknown and it may be that postal insurance shouldn't be claimed - at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.upset. I wonder how many of the posters vaguely supporting RH would feel happy if they were being refused an $800 refund if they thought they were in the right? Honestly ask yourself if you had sent back a misrepresented stone and then couldn't get a refund, how would you feel?
On the flip side, look at the veiled threats from RH and the accusations that we're all harrassing her! Neither are right but it reflects the anguish at the situtation.


I will address the last sentence first. You are correct, neither is right, which by reading this thread was certainly not evident by the posters who, with no independent information other than what their friend told them, tried and convicted RH of some horrible things.

The snide remarks continue with referring to the OP as "the bigger person." RH never made it personal. And once again, RH cannot file the claim. Only the OP or the lab can. And RH has stated many times she would assist the OP in any way she could.

Why assume RH damaged it? She did not drop it when she sent it, so she obviously knows how to handle gems. How would the OP filing be perjury? She paid a certain amount based on certain facts. The stone was insured based on that information. Even other posters on here feel that even if the stone was not copper based, it would still be worth $750. So let the postal inspectors take it from there. But I see no reason for the OP to be afraid, as imo, nothing was intentionally misrepresented.

I have never spoken with either the OP or RH, so I am not taking the side of a friend. And as so many have repeated over and over, this is NOT merely returning a stone for a promised refund. If it was, the thread would have ended after 1 post.

As far as the accusations, do you know for sure no one is crank calling RH? But, I definitely see the harrassment of RH.
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
ruby59|1318181240|3036557 said:
LovingDiamonds|1318158710|3036389 said:
Imdanny|1318122265|3036264 said:
To those of you who are saying that Kelpie should file an insurance claim (and I think the facts speak to Kelpie deserving a full and immediate refund, myself, the contingency of the lab verifying RH's representation was the essence of the contract, from anything I've been able to read in this thread) I'm curious about how you think this might happen.

RH sent the packing materials and the stone separately through the mail to Kelpie (whether Kelpie accepted them or not, and for the record I wouldn't have; I would not accept that I was the owner as RH explicitly said about Kelpie). So, how is the lab supposed to make any kind of determination about what was allegedly their mishandling? At this point, the packaging and the stone have been separated and they've both been mailed again. How is the lab (or their insurance company) supposed to make head or tails of this now?
+1

I fail to understand how the stone being misrepresented is immaterial! It was misrepresented and therefore the sale is null and void. Therefore a full refund is the only remedy. I'm certain (and Kelpie, please do correct me if I'm wrong) that once she has a refund, Kelpie would be the bigger person and assist RH in filing whatever claim is required (subject to it being an accurate reflection of the situation and not one that requires Kelpie to perjure herself). As for Kelpie wishing RH dead? That's completely been taken out of context and if read again, Kelpie was referring to Karma. She was understandably Something nobody has mentioned is that IF the stone left AGL in perfect condition, who knows when the damage occurred? It COULD have happened when RH was opening the package and dropped the stone, it COULD have happened in the post. This is an unknown and it may be that postal insurance shouldn't be claimed - at the end of the day however, a refund to Kelpie followed by a filing of a true claim under the postal insurance would be the best way forward for both parties.upset. I wonder how many of the posters vaguely supporting RH would feel happy if they were being refused an $800 refund if they thought they were in the right? Honestly ask yourself if you had sent back a misrepresented stone and then couldn't get a refund, how would you feel?
On the flip side, look at the veiled threats from RH and the accusations that we're all harrassing her! Neither are right but it reflects the anguish at the situtation.


I will address the last sentence first. You are correct, neither is right, which by reading this thread was certainly not evident by the posters who, with no independent information other than what their friend told them, tried and convicted RH of some horrible things.
Even in the above post the snide remarks continue with calling the OP the "bigger person." And again to clarify, the OP cannot assist RH in filing. Onlt RH or the lab can do so, and RH has stated many times she would help in any way she could.

Why assume RH damaged it? She did not drop it when she sent it, so she obviously knows how to handle gems. How would the OP filing be perjury? She paid a certain amount based on certain facts. The stone was insured based on that information. Even other posters on here feel that even if the stone was not copper based, it would still be worth $750. So let the postal inspectors take it from there. But I see no reason for the OP to be afraid, as imo, she did not intentionally misrepresent anything.

I have never spoken with either the OP or RH, so I am not taking the side of a friend. And as so many have repeated over and over, this is NOT merely returning a stone for a promised refund. If it was, the thread would have ended after 1 post.

As far as the accusations, do you know for sure no one is crank calling RH? But, I definitely see the harrassment of RH.

Do not call my comments "snide". Read ALL my posts please and also please read ALL this thread again because some of your arguments above are factually incorrect. I am anxious that this issue is sorted out between the parties and have tried to offer a balanced view. I find your views completely one sided.
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
Aoife|1318179534|3036545 said:
colormyworld|1318178422|3036536 said:
lelser|1318176335|3036506 said:
But Colourmyworld, that's not the way the law works. You cannot say something is one thing, and then defend yourself when you're proven wrong by claiming that it was still a fair deal for the price and the buyer should have known. Under FTC rules that's completely illegal.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

Perhaps to us gem geeks but I don't think the common man or woman on the street would agree with you in this instance. Perhaps I am taking the notion of common law to far then?
This actually has nothing to do with whether or not we are gem geeks. An item (gems, cereal, handbags) that is advertised/represented as being A can't be B, even if B is worth the same as A, or "nearly as good as A" because that is not what the contract (sale) was for. The item was misrepresented, and the law is very clear on that, especially if the seller is presenting him or herself as a professional, and especially if the seller has explicitly stated that s/he will refund the money if the item isn't what she says it is--which, by the way, also becomes part of the contract. So, in this case, the seller is in violation of at least 2 parts of the contract. That is part of my frustration with some of the posts on this thread, because the basic conflict is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the law governing transactions. Everything else is a distraction, and, as I have said before, irrelevant to the main issue.
Superb summary. Thank you Aoife.
 

ruby59

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
3,553
Do not call my comments "snide". Read ALL my posts please. I am anxious that this issue is sorted out between the parties and have tried to offer a balanced view. I find your views completely one sided.

I feel the same way about yours.
 

colormyworld

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
1,172
Aoife|1318179534|3036545 said:
colormyworld|1318178422|3036536 said:
lelser|1318176335|3036506 said:
But Colourmyworld, that's not the way the law works. You cannot say something is one thing, and then defend yourself when you're proven wrong by claiming that it was still a fair deal for the price and the buyer should have known. Under FTC rules that's completely illegal.

Cheers,

Lisa
www.lisaelser.com

Perhaps to us gem geeks but I don't think the common man or woman on the street would agree with you in this instance. Perhaps I am taking the notion of common law to far then?
This actually has nothing to do with whether or not we are gem geeks. An item (gems, cereal, handbags) that is advertised/represented as being A can't be B, even if B is worth the same as A, or "nearly as good as A" because that is not what the contract (sale) was for. The item was misrepresented, and the law is very clear on that, especially if the seller is presenting him or herself as a professional, and especially if the seller has explicitly stated that s/he will refund the money if the item isn't what she says it is--which, by the way, also becomes part of the contract. So, in this case, the seller is in violation of at least 2 parts of the contract. That is part of my frustration with some of the posts on this thread, because the basic conflict is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of the law governing transactions. Everything else is a distraction, and, as I have said before, irrelevant to the main issue.
Calling a tourmaline a paraiba tourmaline that is from brazil and has the possibility of being from the state Paraiba is not misleading according to the law IMO. Exactly which legal entity forbids this? We use origin all the time to better define the quality of a gem. stone.
 

T L

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
22,868
This thread has gone far beyond the fact that the refund should be made because the stone was not what it was reported to be. We all have our opinions, and I certainly have mine on that. As I stated at the beginning of the thread, I do think the refund should be made. However, this thread has gone way beyond that and the legal matters pertaining to that. Lisa pointed out the law, and how we want to interpret that law per this thread is fine, but in the end, a true legal authority will be the final judge.

The real problem here, now, is the trust level between the buyer and the seller. The words thrown around in this thread, the damaged reputation, the emotion, anger, the supposedly damaged stone, the speculation, etc. . . have made this whole transaction a difficult one to finalize. There is so much more here than $800 at stake. There are two human beings that have been very hurt, and I feel bad for both parties, I really do. I sincerely hope that when all the dust settles, and they can both clear their minds from this thread, that they can come to an amicable solution. I do know one thing for sure, it is not up to Pricescope to decide the legal ramifications of this whole ordeal. We can give sound minded advice, and our opinions, but we all need to respect each other, and the parties in this conflict, in doing so.
 

Apatite0007

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
13
I am a long time lurker on this board. I have not posted before so my opinion probably doesn't count but am I the only one who notices nowhere in the listing did it say the stone is copper bearing? The listing says Paraiba tourmaline, but there is a mine in Paraiba Brazil producing copper and non copper bearing stones. So the fact the stone came back with no copper means absolutely nothing. The stone is as described unless a lab report says it's origin says it is from a different origin.

I looked at rockhugger2010's other auctions and she specifically says copper bearing in the listings. Those stones are held to the guarantee they contain traces of copper, but the stone in question does not.

Assuming it is copper bearing because if it's origin is the OPs fault. And assumptions don't hold up in the court of law.

Ask lots of questions before buying any stone off eBay or in person, because assumptions are made at your own risk.
 

T L

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
22,868
Appetite,
I certainly respect your opinion, and your post really emphasizes the fact that is why this whole debaucle needs to be decided by someone in the legal profession. FYI - but "Paraiba tourmaline" is also a marketing name for a copper bearing tourmaline that is blue or greenish blue or bluish green. Therefore, it was assumed to have copper. However, yes, I see what you're saying. :))
 

Apatite0007

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
13
Marketing names are just that, marketing names. Forgive me is I am wrong but Paraiba Tourmaline is not a trademarked name so it does not legally mean all Paraiba Tourmalines are a specific type of copper bearing albait from brazil. Just as all copper bearing tourmalines from other locations, even the pink and purple varieties, can use the term "Paraiba Tourmalines", non copper bearing stones from the local Paraiba brazil can use the same name.

But I do agree with you the only person who can legally decide is someone in that authority.
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
You are correct but when you see the term "Paraiba Tourmaline" being used by somebody who says they are a GIA Gemologist, it would be my assumption that the Tourmaline was (a) copper bearing (b) had the neon glow associated with a Paraiba Tourmaline and NOT just copper bearing and therefore a cuprian and (c) was either from Brazil OR stated that it was from Mozambique or elsewhere.

The advert stated "**I am a GIA Gemologist, and direct importer of fine and rare gemstones. All stones I sell have been examined and tested with multiple gemological tools, and I guarantee 150% the accurate description and authenticity of everything I sell! If I cannot guarantee it 150%, I will not sell it!!!!***

The other thing to note is that as the stone did not have a lab report at the point of sale, it's unclear as to how this could have been marketed as coming from Brazil. I don't know if this was determined by AGL or not but it's important because if not known, it shouldn't have been advertised as such as that in itself is misleading.
 

Apatite0007

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
13
You use the word "assume". Just like when buying a car, house or other expensive purchases never assume. Assuming something as fact does not hold up in court or in the eyes of the law.
 

LD

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
9,621
I did, on purpose, because one naturally makes assumptions if something is stated as fact. In this case, facts were presented that the stone was as advertised. It's therefore the natural inclination to "assume" that to be true until proved otherwise.

In a court of law, you are correct about assumptions. However, in a court of law, I believe that this sale/contract would be null and void and the seller is in breach of contract.
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top