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. “