Claim No: 445406
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Cite as: Parsons v. National Jewellery, 2016 NSSM 2
BETWEEN:
JUDITH PARSONS
Claimant
- and -
NATIONAL JEWELLERY
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION
BEFORE
Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator
Hearing held at Halifax, Nova Scotia on January 11, 2016
Decision rendered on January 14, 2016
APPEARANCES
For the Claimant Self-represented
For the Defendant Sharon Nash, Secretary-Treasurer
BY THE COURT:
1 The Defendant is a business that operates in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia, purporting to offer (among other things) jewellery cleaning and repair services. The principals of the Defendant business are Gerald Nash and his spouse, Sharon Nash.
2 In September 2013, the Claimant brought three items to the Defendant’s shop. One of them was a 14k gold diamond ring which she wanted cleaned. This ring had been given to her several decades ago, when she was a teenager. It was a ring that she only wore occasionally, but it had great sentimental value. Along with the ring she brought in two gold chains to be cleaned. She also instructed the Defendant to transfer a diamond stud from one chain to the other.
3 The Claimant dealt with Gerald Nash, one of the business owners. He took the pieces and presumably noted what was to be done. While the Claimant did not know this at the time, the pieces were photographed and the image stored on the Defendant’s computer. Unfortunately, in light of this case, the photo was of very poor quality and is quite unhelpful.
4 This legal case arises because, inexplicably, the Defendant failed in virtually every respect to follow the Claimant’s instructions. When the Claimant came to pick up her jewellery, she noticed that literally nothing had been done with the two chains - no cleaning, no moving of the stud. As for the ring, instead of merely cleaning it as instructed, the Defendant had transformed it into something quite different. The shank of the ring had been removed and the piece fashioned into something more like a pendant. The Claimant was “devastated” and asked that it be returned to its original condition.
5 What followed was a lengthy process of waiting, coupled with efforts by the Defendant to replicate the original ring. Eventually, the Claimant lost patience and took the ring in its current state. She took it into one jeweller - Fireworks Gallery - for their opinion on what could be done. That company gave her a written opinion which included the following statement:
Restoration not possible due to poor workmanship on former repair. Excessive solder on ring top and solder pitting. All detail on top is worn or solder filled beyond repair. Settings of diamonds are undefined and full of solder, not holding diamonds securely. Center diamond and one smaller is so damaged it is not possible to reset in new setting - too fragile and missing chunks of main diamond - not round anymore.
6 The Claimant also obtained two appraisals of the original ring on a hypothetical basis, i.e. as if it were still in its original state. These came in at $1,850.00 and $2,000.00.
7 In this claim the Claimant seeks the monetary value of the ring that she originally had.
8 The only witness called by the Defendant was Ms. Sharon Nash, who works in the financial and administrative side of the business. Her Husband, Gerald Nash, was not present in court. Ms. Nash admitted that an error was made, though she did not try to explain how such a serious error could have been made.
9 The Defendant’s position is that the damage to the diamond and settings was not caused by them. Ms. Nash testified that rings of this age can be expected to wear and become damaged, over time. She says that to give the Claimant the value of the old ring would overcompensate her, in two respects:
a. It would force the Defendant to pay for damage it did not cause, and
b. It fails to credit the value of the gold, which is approximately $400.00.
10 The Claimant denies that the diamonds and setting were damaged when she brought it in. Although the piece was decades old, it was not worn regularly and as such would not have experienced the wear and tear that another ring might suffer if worn constantly. The Claimant also suggests that, had such damage been present when she first brought it in, she would have expected the Defendant to say something before embarking upon any type of work.
11 On a balance of probabilities, I find that much if not most of the damage to the diamonds and setting occurred while the ring was in the care and custody of the Defendant. I accept that the ring was seldom worn and in reasonably good condition when she dropped it off. I also draw the inference that, had Mr. Nash observed the significant damage that is now present, he would have brought it to the attention of the Claimant before undertaking the significant remaking of the piece that he mistakenly thought he was being asked to do. Put another way, he must have looked carefully with a jeweller’s eye at the diamonds and setting, and had he noted the damage that Fireworks Gallery speaks of, he most likely would have spoken to the Claimant and questioned whether it was worthwhile to rebuild the ring without also trying to repair the setting or replace one or more of the diamonds. In my view, it is far likelier that the damage occurred during the initial rebuild and during the efforts to reconstruct the original.
12 The Defendant breached its contract, and is responsible for damages that flow from the breach.
13 While the starting point might be the $1,850.00 to $2,000.00 value ascribed to the original ring, that is not the end of the analysis. The existing ring is not without some value. Mostly, there is value to the gold, which appears to be a mixture of 14k and 10k. I doubt that the ring has any other value, given its poor condition.
14 Ms. Nash testified that her Husband had done his own appraisal of the original ring and valued it at $1,119.00. With all due respect, this evidence is virtually worthless. There is no written appraisal to back up this statement. Mr. Nash did not testify, so the statement is nothing but pure hearsay. Furthermore, Mr. Nash is in a gross conflict of interest and could not be expected to give an objective appraisal of value. The evidence supplied by the Claimant was from neutral third parties who have no financial stake in the outcome of this proceeding.
15 My assessment is that the Claimant should recover damages of $1,400.00, which takes a value somewhere between the value of the two appraisals and gives credit for the gold and any other residual value.
16 The Claimant is also entitled to $57.50 for the cost of an appraisal plus $99.70 for the cost of issuing this claim. The total owed is $1,557.20.
Eric K. Slone, Adjudicator