What is this SCARINESS in my diamond that I thought I loved?? PIC

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 2/26/2010 10:25:58 AM
Author: elle_chris
...
Put it this way, if I run a business and i''m seeing a trend in returns on virtual listings, i can not constantly go back and say ''sorry'' to the supplier. This would also cause a PR nightmare for my company as the suppliers become hesitant to send out stones n the future. So what are my options? Well, keep the stones. That in itself is a serious problem as it results in huge losses for my company. I can not run a business like this.

As far as the 4k, most of us agree that it’s too steep an amount to charge. However, as they’re working with her, and nothing’s yet finalized, I’m not going to assume they won’t give her more of the original price towards a new stone.

Elle,

That risk is an essential part of doing business based upon virtual listings. Where the set-up of such business seems virtually without cost, since you do not need any inventory, the risk of occasionally having to take a loss upon a return is the actual cost.

That is why many vendors do not work with virtual listings, because they hate incurring a lot of shipping expenses on stones that they do not want to sell. And that is why other vendors will inspect stones from virtual listings, and will regularly advise the customer against buying it.

If somebody indeed cannot run a business like that, then they probably should not.

Live long,

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 11:41:53 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 2/26/2010 10:25:58 AM
Author: elle_chris
...
Put it this way, if I run a business and i''m seeing a trend in returns on virtual listings, i can not constantly go back and say ''sorry'' to the supplier. This would also cause a PR nightmare for my company as the suppliers become hesitant to send out stones n the future. So what are my options? Well, keep the stones. That in itself is a serious problem as it results in huge losses for my company. I can not run a business like this.

As far as the 4k, most of us agree that it’s too steep an amount to charge. However, as they’re working with her, and nothing’s yet finalized, I’m not going to assume they won’t give her more of the original price towards a new stone.

Elle,

That risk is an essential part of doing business based upon virtual listings. Where the set-up of such business seems virtually without cost, since you do not need any inventory, the risk of occasionally having to take a loss upon a return is the actual cost.

That is why many vendors do not work with virtual listings, because they hate incurring a lot of shipping expenses on stones that they do not want to sell. And that is why other vendors will inspect stones from virtual listings, and will regularly advise the customer against buying it.

If somebody indeed cannot run a business like that, then they probably should not.

Live long,

Exactly.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/26/2010 6:15:33 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On top of that, the vendor is abusing this situation to basically steal 4K of the OP. If the stone is close to correctly represented, there is no way that the vendor risks to lose 4K, even when trying to sell it in a fire-sale to a wholesaler. Which leads to the conclusion that either they are trying to make an extra profit on the return or the stone was incorrectly represented.

I too agree that Kristie bears part of the responsibility and that a full buyback could be difficult to defend. But there should be absolutely no problem to give her a full store-credit, quid non.

Live long,

Just curious why this would even be part of your speculation when the stone was sent to an approved appraisor who concurred with the seller''s representation of the stone specifications? Wouldn''t they both have to be in collusion or deluded as to the true grade of the diamond?

Doesn''t sound like this should have even been thrown out there?

 

[elle_chris]

Chase- the cost doesn''t get covered by re-stocking fees. If the supplier sold it to me for 15k, I sold it for 20k, the customer returns it and I can''t send it back to the supplier- a 5% restocking fee doesn''t cover the cost. Not even close. If this happens too many times, I can longer afford to offer returns on virtual listings. Does that make me a terrible vendor? I don''t believe so. But you as a customer have the option to shop elsewhere because you''re not comfortable with my policies.
Also, you had wrote "If this is how this vendor operates on a regular basis, consumers will learn from the experiences of others". That''s the thing, we don''t know how they operate on a regular basis. We don''t even know the return policy as of yet.

Paul- You''re 100% correct in saying places operating off of virtual lists take a risk. But the reality is that most B&M stores don''t carry a large inventory, and do call stones in all the time. I know this from my own experience when shopping. So what are they to do? Their costs are higher than vendors who don''t have a store front. Not all can afford to have generous polices in place that allows for returns at anytime, for any reason. Should they not be in business? Because if that''s the case, we''d lose more than half our local jewelers.

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 12:48:51 PM
Author: elle_chris

Chase- the cost doesn''t get covered by re-stocking fees. If the supplier sold it to me for 15k, I sold it for 20k, the customer returns it and I can''t send it back to the supplier- a 5% restocking fee doesn''t cover the cost. Not even close. If this happens too many times, I can longer afford to offer returns on virtual listings. Does that make me a terrible vendor? I don''t believe so. But you as a customer have the option to shop elsewhere because you''re not comfortable with my policies.
Also, you had wrote ''If this is how this vendor operates on a regular basis, consumers will learn from the experiences of others''. That''s the thing, we don''t know how they operate on a regular basis. We don''t even know the return policy as of yet.

Paul- You''re 100% correct in saying places operating off of virtual lists take a risk. But the reality is that most B&M stores don''t carry a large inventory, and do call stones in all the time. I know this from my own experience when shopping. So what are they to do? Their costs are higher than vendors who don''t have a store front. Not all can afford to have generous polices in place that allows for returns at anytime, for any reason. Should they not be in business? Because if that''s the case, we''d lose more than half our local jewelers.

1.) Huh? The 20K isn''t there cost. Its their cost + 5K profit. They are not entitled to that profit. It is something they must earn. Their cost in this case is 15k. If they can swing the ring for 16k, they''re still actually making money on the damn thing. Her restocking fee meerly pays for the inventory costs of holding on to the diamond until it is sold. That''s fine if that''s their policy. They just have a responsibility to warn the customer upfront. If Kristie was warned properly upfront, do you really think she''d be so surprised in her response to their denial of her return?

2.) I never said we did. I was meerly suggesting that this is not a sustainable approach to doing business.

3.) Be upfront with customers and don''t employ strongarm tactics like misrepresenting how business is done in the industry as a means of making up for your inefficiencies. I don''t think small B&M''s should be involving themselves in these sorts of transactions if they can''t afford to bring on the risk associated with being a middle man. Sometimes the middle man gets stuck in the middle. Thats the nature of the beast.

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 12:28:53 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 2/26/2010 6:15:33 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On top of that, the vendor is abusing this situation to basically steal 4K of the OP. If the stone is close to correctly represented, there is no way that the vendor risks to lose 4K, even when trying to sell it in a fire-sale to a wholesaler. Which leads to the conclusion that either they are trying to make an extra profit on the return or the stone was incorrectly represented.

I too agree that Kristie bears part of the responsibility and that a full buyback could be difficult to defend. But there should be absolutely no problem to give her a full store-credit, quid non.

Live long,

Just curious why this would even be part of your speculation when the stone was sent to an approved appraisor who concurred with the seller''s representation of the stone specifications? Wouldn''t they both have to be in collusion or deluded as to the true grade of the diamond?

Doesn''t sound like this should have even been thrown out there?

I agree Pur, that doesn''t make too much sense if should brought this to a reputable appraiser. I think the most likely scenario here is that the vendor charged a rather large margin over its cost and doesn''t want to give that up knowing that it likely can''t sell this diamond for that price again as easily as it just did. That vendor is able to charge such a high margin is, at least in part, a result of its willingness to take on this risk. Yet, elle is right and this company earned a large margin on this sale without having to take on any risk, than that''s an example of arbitrage that is only available to this vendor as a result of the lack of free flowing information. If Elle knew she could get this diamond from the other source and that this vendor was not providing added value to the transaction by assuming some of the risk, do you really think she''d have chose to involve a middle man in the first place?

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 2/26/2010 6:15:33 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
What saddens me currently in this thread is that Rockdiamond especially and myself are being smeared because we simply call certain statements of the vendor about the general processes in this industry incorrect. It is really hard to accept that after more than 20 years of experience, we would not know the industry. This cannot be compared to differences of opinion about cut-quality or grading, we are talking about standard procedures amongst all industry-members, and the vendor in question is totally incorrect in his statements about them.

On top of that, the vendor is abusing this situation to basically steal 4K of the OP. If the stone is close to correctly represented, there is no way that the vendor risks to lose 4K, even when trying to sell it in a fire-sale to a wholesaler. Which leads to the conclusion that either they are trying to make an extra profit on the return or the stone was incorrectly represented.

I too agree that Kristie bears part of the responsibility and that a full buyback could be difficult to defend. But there should be absolutely no problem to give her a full store-credit, quid non.

Live long,

What is the correct fire sale price?

 

[elle_chris]

Chase- they''re out 15k for as long as they hold onto that stone.

Once again, the 4k they''re trying to make off the deal is excessive. No one disagrees with this. But as we don''t yet know the outcome, we don''t know if they''re sticking by it.

One thing, while I believe Krisite never specifically inquired about their return policy, I just can''t believe that the specifics of the sale were never discussed. No one calls a vendor, ask them to call a stone in, have it shipped to an appraiser without either party mentioning the conditions of the sale. Does that make any sense??

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 2/26/2010 1:29:42 PM
Author: elle_chris

One thing, while I believe Krisite never specifically inquired about their return policy, I just can''t believe that the specifics of the sale were never discussed. No one calls a vendor, ask them to call a stone in, have it shipped to an appraiser without either party mentioning the conditions of the sale. Does that make any sense??

It''s clear that Kristie had the opportunity to return the diamond if the appraisal didn''t pan out. The facts seem to bear out that she was able to send to an appraiser for approval/confirmation of specs. She accepted the diamond and asked the seller to set it in a ring.

The facts seem to bear out that the seller considered it a SOLD diamond at that point.

What IS interesting is that here is the part where Kristie suddenly goes mute about her understanding of SOLD.

The mystery is what was the understanding/agreement once the diamond was accepted by the buyer and sold by the seller. Like you, I''m a bit gob smacked that anyone would spend $22,000 and not know the answer to that question. It sort of strains credulity doesn''t it

 

[Chase035]

Date: 2/26/2010 1:39:53 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 2/26/2010 1:29:42 PM
Author: elle_chris

One thing, while I believe Krisite never specifically inquired about their return policy, I just can''t believe that the specifics of the sale were never discussed. No one calls a vendor, ask them to call a stone in, have it shipped to an appraiser without either party mentioning the conditions of the sale. Does that make any sense??

It''s clear that Kristie had the opportunity to return the diamond if the appraisal didn''t pan out. The facts seem to bear out that she was able to send to an appraiser for approval/confirmation of specs. She accepted the diamond and asked the seller to set it in a ring.

The facts seem to bear out that the seller considered it a SOLD diamond at that point.

What IS interesting is that here is the part where Kristie suddenly goes mute about her understanding of SOLD.

The mystery is what was the understanding/agreement once the diamond was accepted by the buyer and sold by the seller. Like you, I''m a bit gob smacked that anyone would spend $22,000 and not know the answer to that question. It sort of strains credulity doesn''t it

Elle - It is my understanding of contract law that the burden is on the vendor, not the buyer, to disclose this information to the customer. To the extent that the buyer is not made aware of the terms and those terms are not presented in writing, it is my understanding that a judge would imply a reasonability test to this situation. Is it reasonable for the consumer to believe she had a 14 or 30 day return policy? Since many vendors do have such a policy, the answer would be yes.

Purr- An item is not necessarily a final sale once payment has been made and goods have been delivered. In many states, there is a mandatory grace period in which the buyer can back out of the contract, even if the company has accepted payment and delivered the goods (although this is usually not 11 days). Furthermore, there are many diamond vendors who will sell a ring, allow the consumer time to have it appraised, set the diamond once it is approved, and STILL provide the customer with a lengthy return period to return the diamond. How do I know? Because thats exactly what Blue Nile did for me a week ago. After the send it back to me I will still have the remainder of my 30 day return period to return period to return it. So yes, she should have asked about their return policy, but equally importantly, they should have told her about their exceptions to such a policy in writing. I''m am relatively certain they are obligated to do so as a matter of consumer protection.

 

[purrfectpear]

Having taken contract law, and working in the field for the last 20+ years, I would differ in your assumption that the burden is on the seller. The UCC is fairly clear in this area. Buyer''s should not assume any returns are allowed beyond the point of sale unless notified to the contrary. Some states may have a cooling off period to cancel certain sales of certain products, under very specific circumstances. I don''t know of a state who has one regarding jewelry. Most concern door to door sales, car sales, etc.

 

[Chase035]

Well, here it is in my state. It appears on a state-by-state basis according to consumer protection statutes.

The law
Stores are generally allowed to adopt any return policy, though it should be prominently posted at the point of sale. If there''s no posted policy, some states impose one. For instance, beginning Dec. 1, New York will require retailers who don''t have their own policy to give consumers 30 days to take something back, up from 20 days.

 

[Chase035]

Obviously this store may have had a posted return policy. We don''t know. But I feel safe in trusting Kristie to the extent that this store did not inform her of an exception to their written policy in the case of a diamond sourced from another supplier. At least we seem to all be in agreement that the 4k is ridiculous.

 

[Lula]

First, I just want to say to Kristie, I''m sorry you are unhappy with your stone. I do hope this is resolved in a way that you end up with a diamond you love.

Second, I''m sorry this thread chased you away, and I hope you come back and let us know what happened. These threads tend to become "heated" and lots of times it''s because situations like this (returns) tend to bring out the best or the worst in both customers and vendors. We only know your story, not the vendor''s and this leads to a lot of speculation on the part of the readers of this thread.

But I do want to say that I understand how someone could spend 20+ thousand dollars and not ask or discuss the return policy. People do it all the time with emotional purchases like jewelry and cars...and most of us buy our houses because "we fell in love with the house and knew it was the right one for us." Emotional purchases are wonderful when they work out and full of regret and "I wish I had looked closer or asked more questions" when they don''t.

When I bought my first diamond from a reputable online vendor last year, I had no intention of returning it. I honestly don''t think most people make purchases thinking that they will return the item! Okay, maybe if it''s curtains at Pottery Barn and you''re not sure if they''ll match your wall color.

I was lucky; the vendor had a good return policy. After reading more on PS about the different vendors, I chose to work with a different vendor because this vendor had both a good return policy AND a good trade-in policy. I''ve used the trade-in policy several times. But if you would have asked me a year ago about jewelry and return policies, I wouldn''t have given it a thought -- because when you''re shopping at a bricks and mortar store, the sales staff does not typically spend a lot of time emphasizing their great return policies! Reading PS made me a lot more cautious and a lot more knowledgeable.

But Kristie''s situation sounds more like an issue with the business''s trade-in policies, and I have heard sales staff emphasize their great upgrade policies -- even maul stores want you to upgrade with them, though their policies are often "spend at least double the money" deals. So I am surprised that there was no discussion about upgrade/trade-in policies.

I would think the store would want her to be happy customer, though, since she spent a fair amount of cash on a piece of jewelry and the jewelry stores I''ve been in lately haven''t exactly been over-run with customers.

 

[Chase035]

I''d also argue that their is an implied warranty in effect here. If Kristie said she wanted a stone that was faceup eyeclean, and the stone is not, thats a violation of an implied warranty and grounds for a cancellation of the sale. I too have taken contract law, and I certainly think there are many likely scenarios here where she has a right to a full refund if, in fact, certain things happened as she described.

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/23/2010 12:24:29 AM
Author: kristie
^^ITA.

I am just hoping I can at least exchange it, if not get a refund....it has only been a few days since I bought it. Most good dealers will offer return or exchange for 30 days. It really will drive me insane....no doubt. It is SUCH a pretty sparkly diamond too. If those darn black wisps were not there, it would be beyond perfect

there is a lot of information missing from the whole story IMO--per the above quote from early in this thread. EDIT/ADDITION: I dont think anyone chased her away. We all support her but I think that we differ on our opinions about what the vendors responsibilities are given the time elapsed and the description of the sequence of events as Kristie described them. We also really don't know everything--return policy/communication between her and the vendor etc etc. I seriously doubt that they have NO return policy. Kristie is also not a first time diamond buyer so this isnt a new experience for her.

 

[Chase035]

Since my contract law book is in the attic, here is a helpful link that describes her rights in detail in certain situations.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/consumer-protection/your-rights-as-a-consumer/overview/index.htm

Directing Kristie''s attention to the following:


After telling a salesperson that you needed a washing machine that can handle 15-pound loads, you bought the one he recommended, only to discover later that it can''t. Now the store won''t take it back.

The law
By providing a machine that doesn''t meet your stated needs, the merchant breached another implied warranty: that of fitness for a particular purpose. You have a right to cancel the sale. If the store won''t honor your request to take the washer back, cancel the sale on your credit card, if possible. You may need to initiate (or at least threaten) legal action.
Walk in B&M are rarely going to have the wherewithal to provide a written disclaimer to get around this. Kristie''s stated needs were eye clean. The stone is not eye-clean.

and

How credit-card chargebacks work

If you used a credit card for a purchase and have a problem with the retailer, you may be able to obtain a chargeback from the card issuer. Federal law grants this right under two scenarios:
Billing errors
These apply to charges you didn''t authorize; that are the wrong amount; for goods that were never delivered or delivered late; and for delivered items that were misrepresented or in the wrong quantity. To make a claim, write to your issuer within 60 days of the issuing date on the statement in which the charge first appeared. State the specific reasons you think there was an error on your bill. Some issuers extend this period, but don''t count on it.
Claims and defenses
You can request a chargeback under the claims and defenses provision for any legal reason you have to cancel a sale directly with the seller, including if there''s a problem with the quality of the merchandise. You have up to one year from the statement date to make a claim. You must meet four requirements: The disputed amount must be over $50; you must be able to prove that you made a good-faith effort to obtain a refund or credit directly from the seller; you can dispute only up to the outstanding balance on your card (if your balance is zero, you can''t use this provision); and the merchant must be within 100 miles of your home and in your home state.
While you''re disputing charges, you can withhold payment for the amount at issue, but you must pay the undisputed portions of your credit-card bill to avoid late fees and finance charges. A successful chargeback won''t prevent the merchant from pursuing you directly for payment, including in court, if it feels the chargeback was unwarranted.

 

[Lula]

Thanks, bgray, for the clarification -- I was assuming she was a first-time diamond buyer.

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/26/2010 3:03:38 PM
Author: sarap333
Thanks, bgray, for the clarification -- I was assuming she was a first-time diamond buyer.

well i only know/assume this becasue she upgraded (per earlier threads) from a 2 carat diamond. i only point it because i would assume some familiarity with the whole process.

 

[Lula]

Date: 2/26/2010 3:03:18 PM
Author: Chase035
Since my contract law book is in the attic, here is a helpful link that describes her rights in detail in certain situations.


http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/consumer-protection/your-rights-as-a-consumer/overview/index.htm


Directing Kristie''s attention to the following:



After telling a salesperson that you needed a washing machine that can handle 15-pound loads, you bought the one he recommended, only to discover later that it can''t. Now the store won''t take it back.


The law

By providing a machine that doesn''t meet your stated needs, the merchant breached another implied warranty: that of fitness for a particular purpose. You have a right to cancel the sale. If the store won''t honor your request to take the washer back, cancel the sale on your credit card, if possible. You may need to initiate (or at least threaten) legal action.

Walk in B&M are rarely going to have the wherewithal to provide a written disclaimer to get around this. Kristie''s stated needs were eye clean. The stone is not eye-clean.


and


How credit-card chargebacks work



If you used a credit card for a purchase and have a problem with the retailer, you may be able to obtain a chargeback from the card issuer. Federal law grants this right under two scenarios:

Billing errors

These apply to charges you didn''t authorize; that are the wrong amount; for goods that were never delivered or delivered late; and for delivered items that were misrepresented or in the wrong quantity. To make a claim, write to your issuer within 60 days of the issuing date on the statement in which the charge first appeared. State the specific reasons you think there was an error on your bill. Some issuers extend this period, but don''t count on it.

Claims and defenses

You can request a chargeback under the claims and defenses provision for any legal reason you have to cancel a sale directly with the seller, including if there''s a problem with the quality of the merchandise. You have up to one year from the statement date to make a claim. You must meet four requirements: The disputed amount must be over $50; you must be able to prove that you made a good-faith effort to obtain a refund or credit directly from the seller; you can dispute only up to the outstanding balance on your card (if your balance is zero, you can''t use this provision); and the merchant must be within 100 miles of your home and in your home state.

While you''re disputing charges, you can withhold payment for the amount at issue, but you must pay the undisputed portions of your credit-card bill to avoid late fees and finance charges. A successful chargeback won''t prevent the merchant from pursuing you directly for payment, including in court, if it feels the chargeback was unwarranted.

Chase, I''m curious, are you using this thread to write a paper for a class or something? Chargebacks are tricky, from my previous experience with them, especially in this situation where the diamond was not misrepresented (matched the appraisal).

 

[sdevante]

LOL at all the posts about the U.C.C and other legal talk. I already posted about the U.C.C. 6 pages back.

I also think it''s funny how this thread has digressed into vehement arguments back and forth over the merits of Kristie''s side versus the merits of the vendor''s side, when (assuming Kristie sticks to her word and never comes back), we really don''t have enough facts to say who is at fault here. Nor will we ever.

I say this not as a criticism of anyone, but just as commentary; this is a very entertaining thread.

Cheers to all!

 

[Chase035]

Also worth citing in case that link isn''t read in detail...

You should know
Returns generally require a receipt or other proof of purchase. Without one, you may be out of luck or have to settle for a store credit. Be sure to find out whether the store charges a restocking fee on returns. In some states, including California, Connecticut, and New York, retailers can''t impose them unless they''re disclosed in advance.
If an item you bought is broken or in any other way not what it''s supposed to be, the store''s return policy doesn''t matter. So show the customer-service representative the item''s defect and ask for your money back or a replacement. If he or she balks, ask to speak with a store manager. If necessary, threaten legal action or a chargeback (if you paid by credit card).

--------------------------------------

To the extent that she asked for eye-clean and this stone isn''t eyeclean, that alone would be grounds for a cancellation. So many consumer protection laws protecting consumers so they aren''t shafted in these situations.

Hopefully Kristie has continued to follow this forum despite the negativity.

 

[bgray]

[
Chase, I'm curious, are you using this thread to write a paper for a class or something? Chargebacks are tricky, from my previous experience with them, especially in this situation where the diamond was not misrepresented (matched the appraisal). [/quote]
SaraPJ


I find Chase035 to have sort of a chip on his shoulder about this that I cant quite understand. If we want to have a serious discussion on contract law then there are a number of other relevant questions: Does this stone actually match the definition of an Si2? If not- then we may want to suggest she go after GIA legally or whoever certed the stone since she is claiming it is not eye clean.

From Pricescopes Knowledge section:
What-is-an-Eye-Clean-Diamond?
Things to let your vendor know about your parameters for an eye clean diamond:

1. If you can see clearly from less than 8 inches (20cm), or if you are nearsighted, then you should let your vendor know what distance you require for a diamond to be considered eye clean.

2. If you wish your stone to be eye clean from the side or the underside, please tell your vendor. Vendors and labs rarely take this into account when grading clarity.

Approximately 1 in 100 people can see VS2 inclusions, so if this worries you, then buy VS1, or wait a decade till your ability to focus close-up diminishes.

Most grading reports have plots of inclusions (marked in red for internal, and green for external features); they are useful for identification. Often only the main "grade makers" are plotted, and additional inclusions are listed in comments: "pin points not shown" etc. A worrying 'comment' is "Clouds Not Shown"; a cloud drawn on plots can look so bad that no one would buy the diamond. Clouds are only a problem on SI1 and lower clarity's if no other inclusion is marked on the plot, i.e. the cloud is the grade maker. Big clouds can dull the diamond. But it is rare for even I1 diamonds to be dulled by inclusions.
Diamonds with SI1 (left) and I1 (right) Clarity, 10x magnification.





Next Diamond Tutorial: Diamond Color »

Discuss Diamonds in the Pricescope Forum





Imperfect - I (Pique - P)


Slightly Included - SI


Very Slight - VS


Very, Very Slight - VVS

 

[sdevante]

Can''t go after GIA because of all the disclaimers on the back of the form. As I also said 6 pages back, if there is a problem with the stone not matching specs, she should sue her appraiser for negligence.

 

[bgray]

I hope the outcome is satisfactory to her.

 

[whatmeworry]

Let me put this back on track to help Kristie.

Her vendor says that to recoup his costs he will have to sell it at a "too good to refuse" price to other dealers and it will cost her $4000.

She thinks that is excessive and others in the industry have agreed with this.

So I will ask those in the industry, what is an appropriate loss?

 

[Chase035]

I''m not a student, no. I don''t know why that assumption was made. Perhaps my reference to HBS.

Why I''ve continued responding:

To me, this website is all about consumer advocacy. It is intended to educate the consumer at all phases of diamond selection, purchasing, and maintenance. Consumer protection should be a top priority of those on the forum. To the extent that certain responders took the liberty to blast the consumer and suggested she suck it up and accept the $4,000 fee, I think this thread strayed from what this website is all about.

 

[bgray]

Date: 2/26/2010 3:19:35 PM
Author: Chase035
I'm not a student, no. I don't know why that assumption was made. Perhaps my reference to HBS.


Why I've continued responding:


To me, this website is all about consumer advocacy. It is intended to educate the consumer at all phases of diamond selection, purchasing, and maintenance. Consumer protection should be a top priority of those on the forum. To the extent that certain responders took the liberty to blast the consumer and suggested she suck it up and accept the $4,000 fee, I think this thread strayed from what this website is all about.

Protection from what? You are assuming that all the fault is on the part of the vendor. Many of us think she is somewhat responsible for where this ended: she had it sent to the appraiser of her chosing, said okay I will take it- had it mounted and owned it for two weeks and then changed her mind. She even acknowledged all this. We all agree the loss is very high but you are inferring many things that even she didnt claim. Ie that the stone was mis-represented.

 

[Chase035]

Protection from the boogey monster... or maybe from being disappointed and unsatisfied with her ER?

Not much more to add. The moderator should have stepped in on this thread long ago.

 

[elle_chris]

Hmm, I''m from NY. Maybe I should take advantage of that law and return all the crap I''ve bought at shoddy stores that didn''t have a clear policy

.

Simply put, I just think it''s a case of buyers remorse.