We briefly
mentioned a lawsuit in which a bride (who happens
to be a lawyer) was suing her florist for $400,000 after
she was disappointed with the wedding flowers she paid
$30,000 for.
Now, the Wall Street Journal has tracked down the
filing so we can bask in the litigiousness of it
all.
According to the filing, the florist is accused of "materially
failing to perform in accordance with" their agreement
by " substituting different and less expensive flowers
than the ones required under the contract, and failing
to provide specific items Plaintiffs paid for." They're
also accusing the florist of "using wilted and/or browned
flowers, leaving the event without filling half the centerpieces
with water" and "using dusty or dirty vases."
One interesting
part of the complaint (from a consumer standpoint) is the
bride's assertion that she was falsely lead to believe
that the florist didn't accept credit card payments, and
such deception is a common tactic of shady wedding vendors.
From the complaint:
"It is a common scheme for
wedding vendors to claim that they do not accept credit
card payments and instead require money to be paid upfront
and in a non-refundable form. Wedding services are unique
in the sense that payment is usually required upfront
prior to receiving services, not after. Often, dishonest
vendors insist upon payment by cash or check so that
in the event of a dispute, it will be harder for the
bride to get back her money. "
|
Select a Florist
