cnn article

What I don't get is why sue for 400,000 when the flowers were only worth 27K?

That's crazy!

There are actual damages...the cost of the flowers and in a civil suit, compensatory damages for such things as negligent infliction of emotional distress and pain & suffering. In this case they will argue that the the wrong flowers caused the bride/groom mental anguish on their most important day of their lives..etc etc.

I'm going to guess that with a 27K budget for flowers the entire wedding was probably pretty close to 400k. Hence their argument that the wrong flowers ruined the entire experience. I should add that certain life events that are "emotion" driven, weddings, funerals etc, negligence cases arising from these events often result in large verdicts/settlements against vendors who are found liable.

I don't practice law anymore but I'm guessing that will be the gist of their argument.

Whoa!!

Yeah... at first it seems kinda silly to sue over the wrong color of flowers, but I suppose if I spent nearly 30k on something it had better be the right color! I could actually see the argument if you'd spent 400-500k on a wedding and you the color of the centerpieces threw off the "vision" that you had planned for that that would piss me off too....

Pretty crazy....

I see brides freak out over flowers more than just about any other detail at a wedding... so I'm really not surprised!
I actually saw a florist desperatly painting her lillies the "right" color before the bride could see that her White lillies were really Pink! whoops!!

This is exactly the kind of bride I DON'T want to work for... ever!!

Heh. Exactly why my uncle doesn't do wedding photography anymore. He was once sued when the lab screwed up a roll of film and had to pay to recreate the entire wedding, fly the guests back in, hotels... etc... it was madness.

I wouldn't mind working for a bride that spent almost 30k on flowers. Imagine what she spent on photography!

I.N.S.U.R.A.N.C.E .... I hope the florist has some, as I hope you all have some also!!!

A lot less.

NY Times explains it a little more...

no contract. tisk tisk tisk.

NY Times Article


Edit: This really explains it.... gotta love the post sometimes.

ny post

Another reason to get a contract. I feel ashamed on behalf of the behaviour of the bride. You would think that she would check and double check the flowers if they were important, I'm not surprised...

why would you blame the bride? that's why she paid the florist 30,000 - so he would do the job correctly and provide the flowers she ordered. dont you think the bride has enough to contend with?

I can just hear her now telling the photographer that she wants them to Photoshop all of the pictures with their flowers in pictures to "match the tones of the room" like she wanted.

Does anybody ask their clients what they do for a living before you agree to do their wedding..."You say you are a lawyer...I just remembered that I got a contract back in the mail yesterday for your wedding date."

For 27 grand I'll change the colors of those flowers in every image.

Yeah... but that price tag comes with huge expectations. I am not saying the florist is right, but suing for the full cost of the wedding instead of the cost of flowers seems a bit outrageous. That kind of attitude isn't something I need in my life.

to the bride its a one off occasion and the wrong color everywhere = payback. She paid 27k on flowers, regardless of how busy she is if something is important she should have been able to see the flowers! im sure for that amount of money there wasnt just a few bouquets and flower decor to not see what the flowers where like!

maybe they simply want some early retirement money!

punitive damages, etc. she will not be awarded that much if she wins, they will probably give her the cost of the flowers and attorneys fees (if she was smart enough to include that in the suit) and court costs. it will be up to the jury - they could also award her $1.

$1 for trying? without a contract.

its happened countless times. punative damages get melted down to $1 - the point is, yes, it was damaging but no, its not worth any money. sorta like the woman and the mcdonalds hot coffee saga.

she would still, more than likely get her money back on the flowers, or at least half of it - because yes, she still had flowers, no, they werent her color...... depends on how sympathetic the jury is. and how good her attorney is.

Just because there wasn't a written contract doesn't mean that there wasn't a contract. It's all legal terms, and "contract" has a specific meaning, which does not include a requirement that it be written. Of course, there are other caveats to that, but that's for a judge to sort out before it goes to jury, etc. A florist was getting paid a LOT of money to do something, and I can't blame them for wanting that job done right. Of course, if they'd had a written contract that specified the flowers, hopefully they wouldn't be in this mess.

A jury may well award $1, but if the evidence shows she didn't get what she ordered, they could certainly give more....I'd say if there's clear evidence of a contract being broken, that's not likely though since in this case there was clearly money paid over for something one side says wasn't what they ordered.

Sorry, but the McDonalds coffee story is a bit different, and if you read the case, there was a lot of evidence that McD's had received numerous complaints about the danger of using too-hot coffee and the woman was quite old and severely injured by not just hot coffee, but scalding hot coffee. It wasn't just an issue about coffee being "too hot" and them not warning people...there was far more to it than that.

No joke... the woman was in her late seventies or early eighties and had to have her genital area completely reconstructed because the burns were *that* severe from the coffee being *that* hot. It was something like 180 degrees. I don't think most people realize the severity of it because the news media chose to turn it in to a big joke. For what she went through, she deserved every dime - and I'd imagine a *lot* of the money she was awarded went to pay for the surgeries (which medicare isn't going to cover a lot of). Imagine your grandmother having to go through that.

wow. i did not know. how terrible is that - why did they make such a joke out of it? that is sad.

I didn't know that, either.

Maybe it was made a joke because that suit came around the time that obese people sued over the food being fattening? (Just a complete guess!)

Yea, you guys beat me too it The hot coffee thing was a real issue. As already stated the lady really got injured. It was McDonalds fault! For some reason late ngiht TV hosts and and other people making fun of this as a frivilous lawsuit were all wrong, and apparentally don't read the news, just the headlines.

If this flowers case goes to a jury, they really might award her some big bucks. It's all about the sympathy!

I had a wedding that went horribly wrong last weekend, not on my end, but on the venue's end. I really would be surprised if the bride doesn't sue. I was there, she would be justified!

I feel awful for the lady burned by McDonalds and had no idea it was that bad. Late night talk show hosts make fun of things because that's their job look at some of what they make "funny" divorce, arrests, relapses of all kinds etc., they've never appealed to me and I dont' have a TV at home (too big of a time waster), so it's a moot point now.

Anyhow, for the flowers, even if it caused her embarrasment, stress, etc., it didn't permanently harm her on the same level. No surgery, no physical damage, etc. To get huge awards that's usually what it takes.

This woman probably spent a fortune on her wedding, didn't she have a coordinator who would have been running around trying to find substitute flowers or another solution? For the kind of money she must have spent someone could have tried to fix it on the day, fast flowers aren't cheap but with huge budgets it perhaps could be done.

Wow.I'll be completely honest though in saying that if I shelled out nearly $30,000 for flowers, they had better be perfectly what I envisioned for my big day. Of course, I'd never drop big bills like that anyway...lol.

In any case, it's really a horrible situation for both parties.

Any recommendations for liability insurance? I think WPPI links up with Usher & Hill, but I am shopping around and wonder what else is out there...

One more reason to protect yourself with a contract.

Actually if I was the attorney defending the flower shop one of the points I would raise is the fact that the plaintiff is an attorney and she didn't require a contract or some sort of written agreement. She should have known better - you never leave things like this to chance.

I would bet also that the wedding coordinator will be cross-complained against and brought into the suit as someone should have looked at the flowers ahead of time to make sure they are what you ordered. I'm not excusing the flower shop - they needed a contract to protect themselves as well, but i think that the jury will have to take into account the fact that the bride (or her coordinator) had a responsibility to make sure they were the right color, especially if it was that important. All she gave them was a picture of flowers they were supposed to match? I'm not a florist, but it would seem that if someone is spending almost 30K on flowers I'd want a little more to match it with - at least one of the favor boxes she listed in her lawsuit.

I don't think a jury will award her 40D- she did have flowers, she did get married, and she even was quoted as saying "it was a lovely wedding except for the flowers." That doesn't sound like someone who was distraught to the point of justifying 400K in punitive damages.

I also found it interesting that she filed the suit herself. When I practiced this often times meant they weren't able to find an attorney who would take the case. It's not always the case, but often. Also - you are always better off to have an objective attorney arguing your case rather than yourself - too easy to get caught up in emotions. As the old adage goes: "A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client"

The reality is it will probably settle and we'll never hear an outcome.

my .02

After reading the article from The Post i'm inclined to agree with the bride - except on the extreme amount of money. The florist showed her a sample arrangment with the specific flowers she asked for... they had a different color on the tip... and she booked based on that arrangement. They changed all the flowers out for cheaper ones. Now.. if she had payed a couple hundred bucks for flowers it would be a "you get what you pay for" situation but nearly $30,000 for something that is way off? They also tried to get a partial refund and were refused. Sounds to me like the florist thought they could get away with lowering their costs and got caught.Hmm.. just my thoughts. They are asking for too much money though. The florist should have given the partial refund.bShe booked based off a sample arrangement that contained the right colors... and has an email where the florist said she could get the "exact" flowers. Seems a little like the florist is at fault to me.