- Joined
- Feb 27, 2007
- Messages
- 26,459
Hi,
I do not believe the law itself allows you to become more than whole. Keep your records and send a nice e-mail, carefully worded, that you will return x amount of dollars, but that is as far as you will go. Do not give her one dollar more than she spent. The trip is on her. She will fold. She is trying to cheat. There is no question in my mind. You will not lose in court.
You are a very nice man. Don't get taken. Not one dollar more!
Annette
Hi Wink -
As you say, you made a mistake in your one word 'yes' response. However, since her statement did not spell out exactly what she wanted a refund for, your 'yes' is to the question as you understood it and on the basis of the exchanges you had already had. Since what she was asking for was (in retrospect) unclear, and since she hasn't given you what she's now asking for back, I don't see that she can convincingly argue that you owe her an extra $13k.
I agree with you, that it became far more complicated when you wrote up the sale, reflecting the 83k as retail price. This, to my mind, is where you made the far larger mistake, and it's also where she might have standing for her argument. You said - in writing - that her diamond was worth 83k, and the fact that she only got 70k for it, she might argue, is neither here nor there, and she can claim ignorance as to what arrangement you might have had with the person to whom you arranged for her to sell her stone (ie she might argue you received a 13k kick back).
I don't think you have ANY obligation to reimburse her for her travel expenses since she didn't keep your diamond - that's just bald faced cheek as it seems this was spelled out pretty clearly.
So, if it were me, I'd argue on the basis that her question was not clear - but the sale write up of 83k might have you over a barrel; this is an example of trying to do something nice for someone, and it coming back to bite you. To my way of thinking (and you did say you were wearing thick skin on this, so I'm going to be blunt) her sale write up should have reflected exactly what it was - 70k - and this is where you're vulnerable.
Consequently, I'd argue for no added reimbursement to her - she did, when all is said and done, sell a second hand stone, so 85% is an excellent price, and she did indeed get a trip to Boise to do her shopping - but in my back pocket, I'd keep the idea of being willing to go as far as splitting the 13k with her, meaning I'd be willing to go to 6.5k out of pocket. Past that, I'd be lawyering up.
I wish you a fast, easy, and stress free solution to what is clearly a horrible situation.
But this also works against her as there is correspondence of the agreement to change the sale price. If it was pursued, the invoice of how much she paid is different to the agreed amount. So really it could be turned on her that she owes Wink $13k...