Judge Rules Man Can Keep $13k Cartier Earrings They Accidentally Sold Him For $13
A 27-year-old man accidentally hit the jackpot last year when he purchased Cartier earrings for a fraction of their price, a super rare bargain that led to a legal dispute that was settled earlier this month.
Rogelio Villarreal noticed an ad pop up on his Instagram feed last December featuring a lovely and cheap pair of earrings.
The pieces of jewelry, slender studded 18-carat rose-gold Cartier cuffs lined with diamonds, were priced at just 237 Mexican pesos, or about $13, The New York Times reported on Sunday (April 28).
- A 27-year-old man bought Cartier earrings worth $13,000 for just $13 due to a price error.
- The accidental bargain led to a legal dispute with Cartier, which was settled earlier this month.
- Cartier attempted to cancel the order and offered compensation gifts, which the buyer rejected.
The online shopper, who lives in Mexico, recalled the event on April 20. Taking to his X account (formerly known as Twitter), he wrote: “I was amazed to see how much the necklaces cost and so on and I said: ‘Someday,’ until I saw the earrings.
“I swear I broke out in a cold sweat.”
A fortuitous purchase of Cartier earrings at a fraction of their price sparked a legal dispute for a 27-year-old man
Image credits: Jacek Dylag/Unsplash
Rogelio went on to buy two pairs. Later, the price for the earrings was adjusted on the Cartier website to 237,000 pesos — more than $13,000, according to The Times.
The fortunate price error provoked a months-long tussle between Rogelio, a surgery resident from the northern state of Tamaulipas, and Cartier.
On Friday (April 26), the health worker reportedly said that he had received the earrings for a heavily reduced price and noted that he had a special person in mind to be their recipient.
“I’m excited,” he said, The Times reported, “especially for my mom. Those earrings are for her.”
Image credits: LordeDandy
The lucky score came at an exhausting cost, as within a week of the purchase, Cartier had reportedly begun a series of attempts to cancel the order, initially saying that the earrings were not available.
When Rogelio made no move to cancel the order, he started receiving phone calls from company representatives, as per The Times.
He said:“[They told me] the earrings that I had ordered were not at the correct price, which is why they wanted to cancel the purchase, and that because of the inconvenience they would give me a gift.”
As “compensation,” the French luxury brand reportedly offered “a gesture from the house of Cartier” — a complimentary bottle of Cartier Cuvée champagne and a leather Cartier item, The Times reported.
Rogelio Villarreal, from Mexico, paid $13 for a pair of earrings worth $13,000
Image credits: LordeDandy
Rogelio reportedly decided to reject the gifts and fight back, using a contact form on the company’s website to cite a federal consumer protection law in Mexico that says that a goods supplier can be taken to court for “not respecting the terms and conditions under which” a product or service is purchased.
The man found the terms and conditions for sales on Cartier’s website in Mexico, which state that any dispute could be brought to the Office of the Federal Prosecutor for the Consumer for “conciliation.”
Consequently, Rogelio filed a complaint with the Matamoros branch of the federal consumer protection agency.
The agency, which has a role similar to that of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, has a history of intervening on behalf of consumers when retailers change list prices after a sale, according to The Times.
Image credits: LordeDandy
Rogelio reportedly said that the consumer agency had summoned the jewelry company, worth around $12 billion, for arbitration and that the government had made several attempts to mediate an agreement.
If the consumer protection agency finds that a company is at fault, it can impose fines or other penalties, but it can’t force a company to abide by a price it listed, Jorge López Zozaya, a corporate lawyer in Mexico City, told The Times.
Nevertheless, Mexican law does not extend protections to consumers if a listed price was clearly a mistake, the corporate expert said.
“If this case had gone to a court of law, it probably would have resolved favorably for Cartier,” Jorge said.
Cartier initially launched a series of attempts to cancel the order
@rovilljssr Lo que todos esperaban #Cartier #Unboxing #viral ♬ never be yours by kali uchis – Kali Uchis Fan Page ❦
However, a potential resolution seemed possible, as Cartier indicated the fulfillment of Rogelio’s order, leading to the delivery of his earrings, although the agreement remained unconfirmed by the company or the consumer agency.
Last week, on April 23, Rogelio wrote on X: “War is over,” and on the following Friday, the happy shopper shared a photo of two small boxes wrapped in paper with Cartier’s wax seals, confirming the earrings had arrived at his home.
“Once upon a December,” Rogelio captioned the social media post.
A Mexican senator from the state of Sonora, Lilly Téllez, expressed discontent with Rogelio’s win, as she wrote on X on April 24: “It is wrong to take advantage of a mistake to the detriment of another person, even if the law supports you.”
Image credits: LordeDandy
But many other people were happy for Rogelio, as an X user wrote: “The consumer won.”
Another person commented: “Socialism won.”
Someone else penned: “You could have charged them for so much free advertising.”
An additional commentator said: “I loved everything, I’m going to celebrate for you sister.”
A separate individual chimed in: “Excellent, keep it up, now let’s look for more errors.”
“The customer is always right,” a reader commented
Poll Question
Thanks! Check out the results:
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
You May Also Like
Woman Refuses To Chip In For Babysitting Because She Doesn’t Even Have Kids, Asks If She’s A Jerk
Do you think childless individuals should be expected to chip in for group babysitting costs during friend gatherings?
17 Y.O. Is Done Sharing Her Birthday With Her Late Twin, Parents Are Not Having It
Do you think the girl should be allowed to celebrate her birthday without the remembrance of her deceased twin?
We have laws against these kind of things. Clear mistakes in pricing do not have to be honored. If it said 12.000 instead of 13.000, the consumer would win, as that's not a clear mistake, but if it said 13 instead of 13.000, you bet the shop would win.
I'm all for consumer protection but I agree with that law. And honestly, they offered free "consolation" items, that would have been enough for me. If they'd already sent him the earrings and tried to get him back, NOPE, too late. But canceling an obvious wrong order, before it's sent, AND recompensing him, I'm ok with that.
Load More Replies...
Jewelry has a massive markup to start with, the loss is not nearly what they'd have you think.
We have laws against these kind of things. Clear mistakes in pricing do not have to be honored. If it said 12.000 instead of 13.000, the consumer would win, as that's not a clear mistake, but if it said 13 instead of 13.000, you bet the shop would win.
I'm all for consumer protection but I agree with that law. And honestly, they offered free "consolation" items, that would have been enough for me. If they'd already sent him the earrings and tried to get him back, NOPE, too late. But canceling an obvious wrong order, before it's sent, AND recompensing him, I'm ok with that.
Load More Replies... Jewelry has a massive markup to start with, the loss is not nearly what they'd have you think.
32
13