Gbadamosi v. Westcoast Jewellers Date:, 2013 BCPC 343

Citation: Gbadamosi v. Westcoast Jewellers Date: 20131017 2013 BCPC 0343 File No: 13-44259 Registry: Vancouver IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ADRIENNE GBADAMOSI (FORMERLY MCSHANE) CLAIMANT AND: WESTCOAST JEWELLERS & DIAMONDS LTD. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF HIS WORSHIP BRIAN WALLACE Appearing in person: A. Gbadamosi Appearing for the Defendant: P. Nasr Place of Hearing: Vancouver , B.C.

Date of Hearing: September 25, 2013 Date of Judgment: October 17, 2013 [ 1 ] The Claimant seeks a refund of $1,300 plus costs related to this proceeding of $476.95 on the basis that a wedding ring the Defendant made for her was not the ring that she ordered. [ 2 ] Mr. Nasr for the Defendant says that he made the ring as he understood the Claimant’s description, that he then made changes to it as she requested, and that the Claimant’s fiancé accepted and paid for the ring. [ 3 ] The ring design was one of several the parties discussed when the parties met on February 21, 2013, a few days before the wedding.

The Claimant decided on a design from a photograph that she saw as having a concave band with the diamond mounted between the two edges. The width of the band dictated the maximum size of the diamond. [ 4 ] Mr Nazr did not see the band as concave from the photograph, and it was not clear to me from the photograph that it was concave. After the meeting on February 21, the Claimant, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Nazr, increased the price she agreed to pay in order to have a larger or higher quality diamond. [ 5 ] The ring Mr.

Nazr made was not concave but convex and the diamond was too large to be mounted within the width of the band. When the Claimant first saw the ring, she told Mr. Nazr that it was not the design she had selected and asked him to make the ring concave. [ 6 ] Mr. Nazr did so, but could not mount the diamond within the two edges of the band. He could not have done so, because the diamond was too large. Therefore, he mounted the diamond on a claw mount. The Claimant’s fiancé picked up and paid for the ring. [ 7 ] The Claimant was dissatisfied with the ring because it did not reflect her expectations for the design.

She also said the claw mount was defective. [ 8 ] For those reasons, the Claimant sought to return the ring for a full refund. The Defendant refused. [ 9 ] The Claimant paid $1,300 for the ring. She has had it appraised as having a replacement value of $3,000. She says that replacement value is usually three times market value. [ 10 ] The ring was custom made from a photograph and following a discussion. The Claimant and Mr. Nazr saw it differently, and when the Claimant first expressed her disappointment Mr. Nazr changed it.

It could not have been changed to exactly what the Claimant envisaged because the diamond was too large. [ 11 ] This was an agreement to have a custom made object the final appearance of which was uncertain. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant made the ring he reasonably understood he was asked to make. In my view, the Claimant’s disappointment resulted from an agreement that did not reflect what she expected to receive. [ 12 ] The ring has been valued at more than twice what the Claimant paid for it.

I am not satisfied that it is defective. [ 13 ] The Claim is dismissed. ____________________ Brian J. Wallace, Q.C. Adjudicator