- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Need opinions about Diamond Jewelry
Posted on 3/28/14 at 1:25 pm
Posted on 3/28/14 at 1:25 pm
I thought by posting on this board vs. the OT, I would received more serious responses and advice.
My sister's engagement ring was purchased locally from a reputable jeweler 3.5 years ago. After initial resizing of the ring, one of her pave diamond stones fell out and was replaced by the jeweler. Recently, she had a 2nd stone fall out (not the same stone) which was also replaced. She goes back to the jeweler and requests the 2 previous stones that were replaced be replaced again because the original replacement stones were noticeably smaller and different from the rest of the band. After getting her ring back again, she notices a 3rd stone has fallen out. She went speak to the jeweler again yesterday and he basically said that this was just going to happen with this type of pave band and he would continue replacing the stones.
She works at a hospital and does not wear her engagement ring to work in fear of messing it up and when she gets home she puts it in her jewelry box. After explaining this to the jeweler, he said she should be able to do whatever she wanted including "playing basketball" with the ring on without problems because it should be durable. So, at this point is considering an entire new band for her center stone, as continuously having to deal with this issue is getting old. Should the jeweler be responsible for replacing the band or should she be responsible for paying for a new one?
Any advice appreciated, thanks in advance.
My sister's engagement ring was purchased locally from a reputable jeweler 3.5 years ago. After initial resizing of the ring, one of her pave diamond stones fell out and was replaced by the jeweler. Recently, she had a 2nd stone fall out (not the same stone) which was also replaced. She goes back to the jeweler and requests the 2 previous stones that were replaced be replaced again because the original replacement stones were noticeably smaller and different from the rest of the band. After getting her ring back again, she notices a 3rd stone has fallen out. She went speak to the jeweler again yesterday and he basically said that this was just going to happen with this type of pave band and he would continue replacing the stones.
She works at a hospital and does not wear her engagement ring to work in fear of messing it up and when she gets home she puts it in her jewelry box. After explaining this to the jeweler, he said she should be able to do whatever she wanted including "playing basketball" with the ring on without problems because it should be durable. So, at this point is considering an entire new band for her center stone, as continuously having to deal with this issue is getting old. Should the jeweler be responsible for replacing the band or should she be responsible for paying for a new one?
Any advice appreciated, thanks in advance.
Posted on 3/28/14 at 3:13 pm to TigerWave22
Stay away from the pave bands, it will continue to have the same issues. I would keep the center stone and get a setting, that is very plain and have the jeweler perhaps do some engraving/ scroll work. done. to be honest, the settings are a rip off. she would be better off getting a new setting.
Posted on 3/28/14 at 3:27 pm to TigerWave22
quote:
Should the jeweler be responsible for replacing the band or should she be responsible for paying for a new one?
Redhibition is the legal action that covers warrantying the sale of a movable. Read more about Redhibition here. Generally, a redhibitory defect has to exist at the time of sale.**
**Not legal advice
This post was edited on 3/28/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 3/28/14 at 3:53 pm to GaryMyMan
A defect is redhibitory when it renders the thing useless, or its use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer would not have bought the thing had he known of the defect. The existence of such a defect gives a buyer the right to obtain rescission of the sale.
A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price. [Acts 1993, No. 841, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995]
I think this may be useful... Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated. I'm pretty sure she has her mind made up on getting a new setting, just hoping for help from the seller...
A defect is redhibitory also when, without rendering the thing totally useless, it diminishes its usefulness or its value so that it must be presumed that a buyer would still have bought it but for a lesser price. The existence of such a defect limits the right of a buyer to a reduction of the price. [Acts 1993, No. 841, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1995]
I think this may be useful... Thanks for the advice, very much appreciated. I'm pretty sure she has her mind made up on getting a new setting, just hoping for help from the seller...
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News