Misrepresented Stone. Should I Sue?

[got2goldens]

Date: 2/24/2009 12:44:23 PM
Author: elle_chris

Date: 2/23/2009 8:33:24 PM
Author: purrfectpear



The irony here is that the OP intentionally purchased a diamond in a grade so low, that as you said most would consider highly included, yet they liked the stone after seeing it first hand until they got a jewelers opinion. They didn't reject it because of how it looked, but because a jeweler said it didn't measure up to advertised quality.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around someone who looked at an SI3-I1 diamond and 'thought it looked OK' and now thinks they're entitled to anything more than a full refund

yeah, I don't get it either...

Nor I...

Kat

 

[Rockdiamond]

I could be wrong here- but to me, the intention of the OP was not to try and get some bonanza- rather to try to have some sort of punitive action taken against what they considered to be a purposeful misrepresentation to prevent the seller from repeating this with others.
I agree that a lawsuit is a terrible idea in this case, and event the facts of misrepresentation are not clear...BUT, I also think the OP''s intentions were/are good ones.

Just saying, the guy has good intentions, no need to bash him.....

 

[got2goldens]

Hi David,
Well, when I replied, I wasn't bashing the OP.
My point was, the OP posted originally wanting an opinion on whether or not he/she should sue, and the response was like, 100 to 1 (the 1 being the OP) not to sue, to take the refund and get out of dodge.
So, even after a lot of posters giving that opinion, the OP still wanted to go against the grain and sue...
Why ask for an opinion in the first place, when you already know how you want it to turn out?
I don't know that this constitutes bashing, it's kind of like: "huh???"

Kat

 

[Rockdiamond]

I''m sorry got2goldens- I did not mean you- or anyone- specifically- and the word "bash" was probably too strong.
But I do feel that the OP had good intentions that went unrecognized, and deserved some acknowledgment.

 

[Sharon101]

Date: 2/24/2009 2:47:06 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I could be wrong here- but to me, the intention of the OP was not to try and get some bonanza- rather to try to have some sort of punitive action taken against what they considered to be a purposeful misrepresentation to prevent the seller from repeating this with others.
I agree that a lawsuit is a terrible idea in this case, and event the facts of misrepresentation are not clear...BUT, I also think the OP's intentions were/are good ones.

Just saying, the guy has good intentions, no need to bash him.....

Well you could be right but where I come from if the seller actually tells you it is P1 you imagine the worst.

Once you are in that category of buying uncert. P1 then you are in no-man`s land. You are buying for price and if it seems ok with your eyes. Maybe good for an earrings etc.

But you have no rights that you didnt get a proper P1 because there is no such thing. Not for a court of law anyway.

And who`s to say that another P1 wouldnt look worse??? Its not that easy to find pretty P1`s.

But I do understamd the sentiment behind your post. However it would be more relevant if the poster had bought a better quality diamond in the first place and then found out it is P1 or something.

I just think its s weird that they bought one of the lowest qualities possible knowing so in the first place if they care about these things.