A New Mexico jeweler and the missing ring

Cecilia Gardner, president, chief executive officer and general counsel of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee.

A jeweler in New Mexico who recently reached out to the Jewelers Vigilance Committee (JVC) had a real problem.

The jeweler had taken in a diamond ring for repair and subsequently performed an appraisal of the ring, valuing it at $1,500. The repair ticket reflected that value and included an assessment of the quality of the diamond, the quality of the precious metal and a description of the repair that would be undertaken.

The customer who had brought the ring in signed the repair ticket and was provided with a copy. The jeweler even photographed the ring and showed the photo to the customer before she left the ring at the store.

During the take-in process, the jeweler explained to the customer that the ring was composed of a low-quality diamond and that the damage to the ring was extensive. However, he assured the customer that it could be repaired and that he could do so for a reasonable price. The woman agreed.

For reasons that could not then be explained, the ring simply disappeared. Once it had been placed in the safe, it was removed for the repair and during the time it was undergoing the repair, it was lost. The jeweler was confident that the ring was simply not worth enough to make it tempting for any of his employees to steal. He searched every possible corner of his store—it just was not there. The jeweler speculated that it had fallen into a garbage pail and been accidentally discarded.

The jeweler contacted the customer and immediately offered to replace the ring exactly as depicted in the photo, using the same quality diamond and precious metal of the same quality as the original. As an alternative, the jeweler offered the customer $1,500 in cash or a $1,500 credit at the store.

The customer refused all offers and insisted that the only compensation for the loss of the ring was $10,000 in cash. The jeweler offered the customer $2,500, and again the party refused, assuring the jeweler that she intended to sue. Further, the customer appeared outside the jeweler's store and started to hand out flyers claiming that the jeweler was a thief. The jeweler decided to call the JVC.

The JVC gathered all the documentation and contacted the customer, explaining its alternative dispute-resolution service and securing her cooperation in participating in good-faith mediation.

The JVC carefully reviewed the appraisal, photos and agreements that were provided to the customer at the time the repair was brought into the store. The JVC explained to the customer that the jeweler had been careful at the time the repair was taken in to inform her of the true nature and value of the ring, and had also taken extensive steps to protect himself in the event of loss of the ring.

After further discussions of her chances of succeeding in court (and the expenses associated with court cases), plus a short discussion of the law of business disparagement (and what rights the jeweler might have as a result of her flyers), the customer agreed to take $2,000 to resolve the matter.

The jeweler (who had been thinking of joining the JVC for some time) immediately joined the JVC and will benefit from all the services and programs offered to our members. The customer apologized for the flyers, and the matter was put behind them.

In an odd twist, days after the case was settled, the ring was found under a tear in the carpeting in a back room of the store. The customer refused to take back the ring.

In an occasional series of articles, the JVC offers its advice on how industry members can avoid litigation in an effort to benefit the parties to a dispute, and the industry as a whole. The advice is strictly the opinion of the JVC. For more information on the JVC, go to JVClegal.org.
Source: nationaljewelernetwork