Jewellery is a favourite for many female consumers. When purchasing jewellery, aside from pursuing the latest style, consumers are also concerned about the authenticity and price of the jewellery, as well as the after-sales service. However, it is easy for consumers to be side-tracked by various factors such as the design, price, or discounts. Without professional gemmological knowledge to verify the craftsmanship and materials of the jewellery, disputes might occur if customer discovered suspected quality issues or false product claims after purchase. In 2020, the Consumer Council received a total of 210 complaint cases related to jewellery purchases, including a dislodged diamond suspected to be due to insecure setting; purchase of a bangle mistakenly thought to be natural jadeite; and the unavailability of repurchase service for a discounted product.
To minimise unnecessary disputes, the Council advises traders to provide clear and accurate product descriptions during sales, and to display information at the point of sales to explain the definition of various gemstones and precious metals. Furthermore, the availability of jewellery repurchase service is considered an important piece of information. Traders should clearly notify customers during the sales process whether repurchase service is available and remind customers to pay heed to the terms and conditions listed on the receipt before signing.
The Council jointly published the "Code of Practice of the Jewellery Retail Industry" (“The Code”) in 2017 with the Hong Kong Jewellers' & Goldsmiths' Association and the Kowloon Pearls, Precious Stones, Jade, Gold and Silver Ornament Merchants Association, setting out a clear and comprehensive service standard for the jewellery retail industry of Hong Kong as a means of strengthening consumers’ confidence in purchasing jewellery. To facilitate the enforcement of the Code, the industry established the independent Complaints Review Committee (CRC) to monitor whether participating companies are complying with the Code, and to help resolve consumer disputes under the premise of mutual understanding for both parties and maintaining an amicable long-term customer relationship.
Case 1: Dislodged Diamond Suspected to be Due to Insecure Setting Method
The Complainant purchased a diamond platinum ring from Company A a few years ago at a price of around $130,000. The ring was mounted with 1 pear-cut pink diamond along with other melée diamonds. One day, the Complainant found that the pink diamond on the ring had disappeared and she thus reflected as such to Company A. Upon searching on the Internet for diamond ring designs and settings by other companies, the Complainant found that diamonds were generally set with triangular prongs while her diamond ring was not. As the Complainant had previously purchased another diamond ring from Company A which was also set with triangular prongs, she suspected that this pink diamond in question had fallen out due to insecure setting, and hence lodged a complaint with the Council, requesting Company A to replace and set a diamond of the same style for free.
Company A stated that the diamond ring was purchased by the Complainant a few years ago and it might be possible that the diamond was dislodged due to daily wear and impact. Company A was willing to source a similar pink diamond for the Complainant, but maintained that the cost of the diamond should be borne by the Complainant. Since Company A was a participating trader of the Code, the Complainant agreed to pass the case to the CRC for further conciliation. Eventually, the Complainant accepted the suggestion of the CRC for purchasing another pink diamond from Company A, which helped to set the diamond free of charge.
Case 2: Misconceiving the Grade of Jadeite Based on Salesperson’s Claim Yet Exchange Request Unmet
While the Complainant was selecting a jade bangle from Company B, the salesperson recommended a jade bangle to her and claimed that the jade will become more translucent with wear. To the Complainant’s knowledge, only natural jadeite (天然翡翠) (commonly known in the trade as “Type A jade”) has the property of increasing in translucency with wear. Therefore, the Complainant believed that the bangle recommended was made from natural jadeite and proceeded to purchase the item for $2,800 by credit card. However, upon closer look at the receipt at home, the Complainant found that “Jade bangle 1 pc B” was written on it. She hence suspected that the bangle was not made from “Type A jade”. When the Complainant confronted Company B on this issue, the staff argued that they had never claimed the bangle be made of natural jadeite and further alleged that many local customers knew that their store only sold “Type B jade”. Since there were no “Type A jade” bangles available in-store for exchange, the staff offered to help the Complainant source more options from other suppliers at an extra cost of around $20,000. The Complainant was dissatisfied with this offer.
The Complainant was of the opinion that Company B neither clearly disclosed that the bangle was made of “Type B jade” nor proactively notified the customer that only “Type B jade” was sold in the store, which was unfair to customers. Despite the Council’s conciliation effort, the staff of Company B reiterated that only the translucency of the jade bangle was mentioned during the sales process while the grade of the bangle was not indicated, thus no misleading was involved. Company B also decided that they would no longer offer exchange service to the Complainant. In view of the unsuccessful conciliation attempt, the Council advised the Complainant to pursue compensation through the Small Claims Tribunal if needed.
Case 3: Delayed Realisation that Repurchase Service was Unavailable for Discounted Goods
The Complainant was a 70-year-old senior citizen and a long-term customer of Company C. When the Complainant visited Company C to collect a festive gift, she was persuaded to buy some diamond jewellery by the staff. Attracted by the designs, the Complainant eventually purchased a platinum pendant mounted with natural diamonds for $26,600. She paid by instalment with credit card and signed the receipt as directed by the staff. The staff of Company B wrapped up the diamond pendant for the Complainant and only mentioned to her just before she left that jewellery repurchase was not applicable to discounted goods.
Only upon closer look at the receipt after returning home did the Complainant notice the “no repurchase” clause printed on the receipt. The Complainant alleged that owing to her age and the fact that she was not wearing glasses, she did not read the terms and conditions in detail while she was in the shop. Besides, she has been a long-term customer of Company C for many years and had never encountered situations where jewellery repurchase was not offered. As such, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Council alleging that Company C’s staff not only neglected to verbally notify her, but also requested her signature while she was unaware of the clauses. After conciliation, Company C decided to exercise discretion to offer a full refund to the Complainant and the case was thus resolved.
Consumers should pay heed to the following when selecting and purchasing jewellery:
- Clearly understand the legal definition and sales requirements of various gemstones and precious metals beforehand, as well as the product nature of the desired piece of jewellery. Cross-check the accuracy of the product information on the receipt;
- Take note of whether the trader provides warranty and maintenance services, such as jewellery cleaning and repair, repurchase or exchange of goods according to the terms and condition, etc., and request the trader to have such terms clearly stipulated in the receipt;
- While wearing the jewellery, avoid impact with sharp objects to prevent scratching. Store the jewellery in a protective case or felt pouch when not in use, to reduce discolouration of the jewellery as a result of exposure to external elements such as heat or moisture;
- Avoid jewellery from contacting the chemical substances in swimming pool water, seawater, cosmetics and home cleaning products that may dull their lustre.
The Consumer Council reserves all its right (including copyright) in respect of CHOICE magazine and Online CHOICE.