Jewellery Problem

Astaroth

I wouldnt bother sending a letter until you have had the item revalued.

If you say the hallmark is 1930's then I wouldnt say "considerable age" as this firstly isnt really relevant and I personally wouldnt consider something made of metal to have considerable age at "only" 77 years old.

As has already been pointed out the matter of the charge for the work and even the authorisation comes down to one persons word against another as a verbal contract is as binding as a written one but just harder to prove one way or the other.

The devaluing of the item is potentially more of an issue, I have no idea about the value of jewellery to even stab in the dark as to if it decreases the value (or potentially even increases it). Clearly you need to obtain a copy of the terms and conditions of their repair/ resizing work to see if they include a clause to absolve them of liability for damages (as most dry cleaners do as others point out)

You also have fairly contradictory messages go on in the letter above.... "you have damaged my sentimental property" and "you have devalued my property" having the 2 together damages each others case as most people wouldnt care of the financial value of a sentimental piece, it is the fact it was their great great grandmothers hair in the locket not the fact the locket is worth £10m

rjh090384

the reason i am sending the letter is to cover myself. if i dont send it ti ooks like i am paying the charge and accpeting that my ring is ok which it is not.

if i dont send the letter then come back to them well tehn they could syay but u tok the ring and paid so everything is ok.

technically teh terms and conditions of resizing do nto apply becasue they were not authorised to resize in teh first place.

gyzmo

Voyager2002 wrote:

I think the docket that does not show a price would be sufficient evidence.

And since she did not authorise them to go ahead with the work, she has not entered into a contract with them and so the clause in their standard contract about not being responsible for damage presumably does not apply.

If the loss in value resulting from the destruction of the hallmark is a significant amount of money, then proper legal advice would be a very good idea, and might well pay for itself.

I think that a court would look at what has happened and see intention behind the actions of bth parties.
How can you say a docket is evidence? There is nothing on it - it could have been stolen. it does not indicate what the intention of either party was. The only thing a court has to go on is word of mouth and the actions of both parties. A court will try to deduce what was intended from that.

Voyager2002

rjh090384 wrote:

, this ring was a 1930's Austro-Hungarian ring.

As a matter of interest, how can there be a 1930s Austro-Hungarian ring? I always thought that the Austro-Hungarian empire came to an end in 1919, when Hungary became a separate and independent country.

rjh090384

wel lteh mark was identified from armans appendices as a mark used from 1920-1937 in austro-hungary by a jewellry expert

rjh090384

oops sorry i lied
The lopsided pentagonal mark actually has 7 sides, not five. Looking at your photo, I could clearly make out that there is something inside the stamp, and looking at it again now it is clearly a lions head. It is an Austro- Hungarian mark that was used from 1866 to 1937

bluecandy5

A hallmarking is never guarenteed to be safe during a ring re-sizing im afraid.