The courtroom was set for a classic showdown over luxury and trust. Jennifer Fleger, the plaintiff, was suing for $3,600—the remaining balance of a high-end eBay transaction that had gone terribly wrong.
A “Final Sale” Turned Sour
It all started when Jennifer listed her beloved Van Cleef & Arpels (VCA) Rose ring on eBay. This wasn’t just any jewelry; it was a limited-edition 18k gold piece valued at over $11,000. Alina Brooke, a professional eBay jewelry reseller, snatched it up for a “best offer” of $4,100.
At first, everything seemed perfect. Alina even sent an email praising the “fast shipping” and “excellent service.” But three days later, the honeymoon was over. Alina claimed she wasn’t “happy” with the ring. Jennifer stood her ground: “It’s a final sale. No returns for buyer’s remorse.”
The “Serial Number” Escape Hatch
Denied a simple return, Alina began hunting for a technicality. She claimed a “red flag” emerged: the serial numbers didn’t match. According to her, the number on the ring, the bag, and the insurance paperwork were all different. She complained to eBay, and to Jennifer’s horror, eBay sided with the buyer. The deal was undone, and the ring was shipped back. But when Jennifer opened the returned box, she claimed a diamond chip was missing. She was hysterical. The “cheating” defendant, she argued, had sabotaged the piece.
Judge Judy’s Deep Dive
The Judge didn’t just take their word for it. She did what eBay failed to do: she called Van Cleef & Arpels. The investigation revealed the truth:
The “mismatching” numbers: The Judge discovered that “CU94” wasn’t a serial number at all—it was a stock number (SKU). In the world of high-end jewelry, “CU94” is identical to “CU0094.”
The Real Serial Number: The actual unique serial number (starting with NYS) was present in the original advertisement and on the official receipts.
The Judge realized there was no fraud, no mistake, and no fake jewelry. Alina had simply tried to use confusing numbers as an excuse to back out of a binding contract.
The Verdict: Justice is Served
The Judge’s ruling was swift and firm. She pointed out that eBay’s decision to return the money was “preposterous.”
“There is not a serial number problem in this case,” the Judge declared. She ordered Alina to pay the remaining $3,600 to Jennifer. By paying the full price, Alina officially became the owner of the ring she tried so hard to return.
Jennifer left the court relieved, though she vowed never to sell such expensive items on eBay again. Alina, still clutching the ring box, remained defiant, insisting the numbers were wrong despite the expert’s clarification.
