Hey, there! Log in / Register
She went to Jared - and filed a lawsuit
By adamg on Mon, 12/16/2013 - 7:46am
A woman who bought a $249 emerald ring at the Burlington Jared says it was defective and now she wants the company to pay her and 10,000 other customers more than $5 million in recompense.
In her suit, filed last week in US District Court in Boston, Catherine O'Connell says the value of her ring "is worth substantially less" than what she paid for it because the emerald was treated to make it look good in the store and now she'll have to keep treating it somehow to keep it looking nice.
O'Connell says he and the other purchasers would never have bought their gemstone products - or would have bought them only at a reduced price - if they had known of their alleged defect.
The Defendant extensively advertised that class jewelry was of superior value and extolled the quality and virtues of class jewelry including superior quality, value and beauty.
The Defendant represented that class jewelry was of a particular standard or quality when it was not.
The Defendant breached its express warranties in that class jewelry was defective with respect to undisclosed treatments that affected value, special care requirements, light refraction and other measureable standards.
The suit asks a judge to order Jared to hand over all the money it took in from their sales, for distribution among purchasers, plus damages, plus lawyers' fees.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 O'Connell complaint | 1.01 MB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Mass has to have the highest
Mass has to have the highest rate of lawsuits in America
The part of your post where
The part of your post where you made a point seems to have been cut off. Please re-post. On second thought, don't bother.
The case was filed in Federal
The case was filed in Federal court, so it really has nothing to do with the MA court system.
Background
Here's some background reading I found on what "enhancements" mean for emeralds: http://jcrs.com/newsletters/2007/2007_11.htm
Seems she might have a case if they didn't disclose the natural appearance of the rock they're claiming was nearly flawless when they sold it. Doubly so if they didn't disclose that the treatment they used to sucker you into buying the shiny pretty emerald wears off and you have to have someone constantly maintain it for you.
What do you expect
Shopping at Jared's.
I thought it was old news
I read in Nat'l Geographic, years ago about 'oiling' emeralds, injecting oil into them. The article was set in Columbia. Having read Kaz's link, it seems there are many new shenanigans going on with emeralds. I guess, buy genuine estate jewelry or just stick with beer.
You get what you pay for
She paid $250 for an emerald ring, what did she think he was buying? The Hope Diamond? Jewelry enhancement isn't exactly a secret. Buy why bother doing your research and exercising caution when you can just sue every time you regret a purchase...?
Yeah, if you can't rip off
Yeah, if you can't rip off the marks, then the terrorists have won!
Of course it's less
This line kills me:
Face it, anything you buy in a jewelry store is worth substantially less that what you pay for it. If you think you can turn around and sell it for anything close to what you paid, you're dreaming.
Yeah, absolutely.
If the item you took home turns out to be something other than what the merchant told you it was, and then the merchant refuses to take the item back, then you are completely out of line asking the court system to enforce your contract. Caveat Emptor and all that.
Yep. Because the merchant deserves to be sued
and possibly driven out of business for what - selling this person an emerald that turned out to be - wait for it - an emerald! Refund the woman's money, perhaps. But a "class action" lawsuit, idiotic.
Lawsuits like this are just another example of how the civil legal system (and lawyers who leech off of it) is slowly destroying this country.
We have courts and laws for a reason
If the merchant failed to disclose (as required by law) that the "emerald" was in fact adulterated to look like something it wasn't, you're arguing that it's unfair or wrong that he should be sued or otherwise punished?
I presume that, had he refunded the money, the suit wouldn't be happening, no?
No this is exactly what the
No this is exactly what the court system IS for. Jared's if you look is notorious for poor craftsmanship and people are losing money to them all the time. I believed their lines, and bought my wife a ring upgrade, and the diamond has fallen out now after one year, and we had to have it fixed twice before from crappy work. We deserve to get our money back if the quality is lesser than claimed. ESPECIALLY if we pay for the guarantee!! Im all in on this. I want my money back from them because they sell themselves to be the best, and you get nothing near what you pay for. This is supposed to be a family heirloom, and it lasted a year. That is unacceptable, and as a company if they will not stand behind their product then I need to go elsewhere. The reason they will not give back people money is that they know they are not selling what they claim.