Who do you think should come out on top?

[JOSweetHeart]

Go here for one heck of a sad story. To me, a complete and total refund should be given to the buyer and the family should be given what they are asking for because they have already been through more than enough with their family member gone and no one being brought to justice for the death.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

 

[Unkotare]

What's the story?

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ A ring that belongs to a deceased woman was purchased by a person who has no intention of ever giving it to her family at all in any way. They want it for themselves no matter what its significance is to those who are hoping to get it.

God bless you and the lady's family always!!!

Holly

P.S. The lady was apparently murdered and the perpetrator has not been found.

 

[RodISHI]

So the coroner screwed up supposedly and did not return the ring to the family. Any cost of getting that ring back to the family should be on the coroners office.

 

[Dekster]

Sounds to me like the dispute really is the seller refuses to turn over the ring until he is paid and they are refusing to pay until they have the ring. Should be easy enough to resolve if they actually want to make the effort.

 

[Resnic]

The county auctioned the ring off, a man bought it legally at the auction, now it belongs to him. He paid for it fair and square.

"Feelings" don't matter when nothing wrong has been done.

I don't see the problem. You can't be mad at a guy that bought something at an auction. Could he be nice and sell it to them? Sure he could. But he doesn't have to either because it belongs to him.

 

[Resnic]

^^^ A ring that belongs to a deceased woman was purchased by a person who has no intention of ever giving it to her family at all in any way. They want it for themselves no matter what its significance is to those who are hoping to get it.

You skewed the information to spin your own narrative and misrepresented the actual story to paint that person as a bad guy. Half of what you said was not in the story at all, you made up his intentions.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ I most certainly did not. The buyer is well aware now of what led to the current circumstances and still has no intention of giving up what rightfully belongs to someone else. The only thing that may not have been said in the write up is how the family finally got word about the woman's things being distributed in such a way and why it took so long for them to be contacted.

So the coroner screwed up supposedly and did not return the ring to the family. Any cost of getting that ring back to the family should be on the coroners office.

I second this. Whoever put the item up for bids should've made a better effort in finding the woman's family before her things were made available to anyone else.

God bless you two and the lady's family always!!!

Holly

 

[Slade3200]

The county auctioned the ring off, a man bought it legally at the auction, now it belongs to him. He paid for it fair and square.

"Feelings" don't matter when nothing wrong has been done.

I don't see the problem. You can't be mad at a guy that bought something at an auction. Could he be nice and sell it to them? Sure he could. But he doesn't have to either because it belongs to him.

Legally you're right he doesn’t have to sell to them. I guess legally they also would have to right to shame him publicly for choosing not to sell the ring. All legal. Right?

 

[Resnic]

^^^ I most certainly did not. The buyer is well aware now of what led to the current circumstances and still has no intention of giving up what rightfully belongs to someone else. The only thing that may not have been said in the write up is how the family finally got word about the woman's things being distributed in such a way.


I second this. Whoever put the item up for bids should've made a better effort in finding the woman's family before her things were made available to anyone else.

God bless you two and the lady's family always!!!

Holly

Sure you did. You added in your own context with your words.

And it doesn't rightfully belong to them if he legally purchased it. Rightfully belong to them is purely subjective, it isn't a fact.

I'll stop replying though as I can see you just want to be upset about something that has nothing to do with you or effects you at all and will say whatever you need to in order to keep up the outrage over such a insignificant thing.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Just because you label this matter an insignificant occurrence doesn't officially make it an insignificant occurrence. Obviously what was left behind by the lady means enough to her family and so if the purchase of her jewelry is declared legal when the dust has settled, may her family sue whoever sold her property for all that they are worth because this matter is all because of them not doing their job thoroughly enough.

God bless you and the woman's family always!!!

Holly