21 Comments

27K for flowers? What planet do these people live on? Another case of a spoiled bride who thinks that the world revolves around her.

It is fascinating that people will spend $27,000 on flowers. I know this is likely a low number, but it is reflective of the nature of our culture. That only leads to the ridiculous legal claims that we see. I often think we are in the last days of the Roman Empire.

27K for flowers is fairly low, actually (yes, some people still behave sanely, but it’s getting less common).

Weddings (and certain birthdays) are so ridiculously out of hand as to be beyond garish.

Go watch Father of the Bride, and realize that such over-the-top extravagance-to-the-point-of-humor pales compared to the real thing. :-/

Um, why, instead of calling the bride a spoiled brat, you consider the fact that this florist CHARGED them 27K for flowers they totally messed up? If someone is going to shell out that much money for flowers, they at least should be the right color, as promised. I don’t understand the outrage at ALL.

Um, Alice, maybe the florist CHARGED bridezilla $27k for flowers because there WERE $27k worth of flowers. Some rich idiot lawyer clogging up the courts with this crap is the outrage.

This lawsuit is second silliest next to Roy Pearson’s (a/k/a “Pants Man”) $67M suit against the Chung’s dry cleaners. The merits of Glatt/Elbogen’s suit are not clear, but even if you assume the allegations are 100% true why the claim for $400K? So, Alice, the outrage is understandable when you see knuckleheaded attorneys filing claims for fanciful damages—it is akin to schoolyard bullies shaking down kids for their lunch money.

Now, perhaps the florist screwed up and her $4,000 pre-suit demand was reasonable. If so, shame on them. However, I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between—that although the flowers were inadequate/disappointing, it probably didn’t constitute tortious conduct.

Let’s hope to God the florist didn’t have a “Satisfaction Guaranteed” like in the Pants Man lawsuit or this florist will be “taken to the cleaners” as well.

Shame on you, Ms. Elbogen, if only for the ridiculous amount of damages claimed.

Um, JP….I don’t understand how this is clogging up the courts. This florist broke a contract – there were a certain type of flowers promised, they said “we can get that exact color,” she was forced to pay the sum in full prior to the wedding, the wedding comes and the flowers are entirely different than what she contracted for. So, therefore, she did NOT get the 27,000 she spent – there were not 27,000 worth of flowers at the wedding. Who knows how many other customers this florist is ripping off – if this one suit keeps 10 other people from having to go through the expense of hiring a lawyer (she’s representing herself pro se), then good on her.

The reason why you “sue for 400,000” is quite clear in NYS litigation – – whatever you claim in your complaint is the most you can possibly ever get out of the lawsuit – this is 100% standard practice – most lawsuits start with 1 million, just as a starting point, even if every party involved know that’s nowhere near where the case is going to settle. If the florist would do so much as return an email or answer a phone call from the bride, they wouldn’t have to sue in order to so much as get part of the 27,000 back – since she did NOT get what she bargained for.

Alice,

It sounds like there was no written contract so I don’t see where you got the “we can get you that exact color” quote. As the florist says in the article, give the unknowns such as lighting temp and nature’s hues, it is hard to imagine anyone making such a promise. Just play with our computer monitor’s color temp settings to see what I mean. The difference can be huge.

I guess from now on this florist will have to charge more to cover Color Insurance. Or maybe just stop doing business with lawyers. They haven’t made themselves a protected class yet, have they?

Dad’s advice was good for all product and service providers.

Let’s keep in mind that given the pre-suit demand was $4,000, it stands to reason the plaintiff believed the claim had no more value than that—and she may even accept less. Now, she goes off and files a damage claim for one hundred times that amount. Does that make any sense to you? And if you claim the “most you can possibly ever get out of the lawsuit” why the arbitrary figure of $400K? Why not the just-as-much-ridiculous $67M Pearson v. Chung demand? Had she claimed only $27K I believe this story would never had come to the media’s attention because it would have been only a garden-variety goods and services claim.

And, it seems to me that too many people in this discussion thread are assuming that everything she alleges in her complaint is rock-solid true. How do we know she “did NOT get what she bargained for”? Have we read the florist’s answer or obtained a statement from his/her attorney? What’s the other side of the story? The flowers still made it to the wedding, maybe not $27K worth—say $20K or even $15K. What’s with the money grab with anything over $27K?

A few months back I received some slow service at Olive Garden. The poor server was overworked because it appeared staffing was inadequate. After the meal, I brought this to the manager’s attention. He comped both entrees (I still had to pay for drinks and appetizers). I was pleased at that. Should I have sued for the cost of the entire meal plus a few hundred extra thousand for my trouble?

OB, try reading other articles and news stories about this issue before you start wondering where I get particular quotations. The quotation I used earlier was in the NYT article about this issue. So, therefore, computer monitors being different for everyone being a given, the florist shouldn’t have made a promise they would have known they couldn’t keep.

I don’t know the specifics of the case, obviously, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t the amount (400K) of money spent, total, for the entire wedding. Which, ostensibly, could make sense, if, as the complaint argues, these flower arrangements ruined the entire wedding. Again, I don’t think anyone (including the claimant) believes they will actually receive (or deserve) the full claimed amount. But it’s a ballpark. And that’s an entirely fair amount to claim as your cap for damages.

We obviously don’t know whether everything in the claim is true – but if it’s at least arguable that she COULD, hypothetically, with one interpretation of the facts, receive as much, then she has as much of a right as any to claim as much. That’s the whole basis of the civil litigation system. If you don’t like that, fair enough – but blame the system, rather than resorting to kindergarten retorts of calling her a bridezilla and over-the-top.

The difference, Jason, is that the OG (classy choice) at least gave you something for your dissatisfaction. The florist in this case did nothing at all. Did not return her calls/emails. Did not at least try to make up the difference between the cost of the actual flowers and those contracted for. Nothing. Therefore, she SHOULD sue – – – it is the last resort, but when a vendor chooses not to deal with you, you might not have any more options.

Alice, it would help if you provided links. The NYT article linked here does not even include the word “exact”. Perhaps you are referring to a different article. Usually, it is the responsibility of the person providing the quote to provide a source rather than asking the person questioning it to show that it never occurred.

As far as claiming the entire cost of the wedding, that seems a bit much since they are quoted as saying, “It was a lovely wedding,” except for the flowers.

I would have only a small problem with our using the courts to settle all of these disputes if the costs were covered by the loser. As it is, the florist, who could be completely in the right, is forced to pay legal fees regardless. Plaintiffs know this and count on it providing an incentive to pay regardless of right or wrong.

Alice,

I forgot to ask,was that a dig about the Olive Garden? if so it too was very classy. If not, sorry but the words came across that way.

And I can well imagine getting an e-mail that I felt should not be dignified with a response. Particularly if the response could then be used as part of a lawsuit.

Having not seen the e-mail in question I choose to accept the florist contention that it was not worth responding to. Feel free to accept the bride view. Perhaps they will make it public. Unless it is copywritten.

I think this may be what Alice is referring to.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10162007/news/regionalnews/bridal_bloom__doom.htm?page=0

It seems that one of the problems is a different variant of flower was used, rather than a slight color difference.

If the real issue is merely the way the legal system is set up – the anger, name-calling and rudeness (not you specifically OB, but generally, and, as being posted to this site) should be directed at the legal system and not this woman. The concept of claiming, in your complaint (not your demand, not in settlement negotiations), the full value of the wedding is nothing NEAR immoral. It is the maximum the claimants would ever consider claiming. It is a fair cap, personally – a cap no party to the case ever would consider remotely likely. But it is what it is – that’s the way our legal system works. The florist has consistently admitted that this is all “over a color shade” – therefore, she already admitted that she did not deliver the flowers she promised. So she is not, according to her own quotations, “completely in the right.”

Alice,

I think you are right. We simply do not know enough to condemn the bride outright. Perhaps the process is at fault for making her actions seem so egregious. The few news articles I have seen (yes, I admit that this is not the single focus of my life) do not paint a clear picture one way or the other and I should try to give her just as much the benefit of the doubt as I am giving the florists.

Again, having not seen the articles you mention and quote, I do not have the compete context. But it does not seem to me that saying you are being sued “over a color shade” constitutes an admission any more than saying you are being sued “over an accident” means you acknowledge that the event was an accident and that you were at fault. You might feel that the person claiming it was an accident did it deliberately to defraud your insurance company but simply used the terms of the claim to describe your legal situation. Maybe not the best legal phrasing but certainly common enough in everyday usage.

I think the real victim here is the groom. He is now married to someone whose whole day can be ruined, RUINED I SAY, simply because an arrangement was different than expected. Oh, the horror! Oh, the drama. The poor sap had better watch his step in every little thing he does around the house.
And yes, Alice, I am taking a swipe at the bride. They could have put cactus on the table and it wouldn’t have RUINED THE WHOLE WEDDING DAY of any woman with any sense, maturity, and class. (whether you want to pay the florist for them is another matter, but over the top petulant pouting reflects poorly upon her)

I think that if I were on a jury listening to this, I would feel that:

1) If the flowers were wrong, and the desired colors/types were clearly agreed upon, then the flower shop owes a refund of at least part of the price.

2) Anything above a full refund is ridiculous.

3) Can we sentence the plaintiff to 3 years working on an Amish farm? Oh wait, I can’t think of any Amish farmers I hate that much…

I too am a wedding designer. I can assure you that pink/green hydrangeas are NOT cheaper than “rust” hydrangeas.. actually, they are the same hydrangeas, but at different stages… the lighter being less mature, which all depends on climate and cooling conditions of the air. The rust are matured and this happens due to air temps. Maybe the florist should be sued for global warming?

ALL flowers can change hues due to soil conditions, temps, etc. BECAUSE THEY ARE NATURAL. Maybe the florist should have substituted silk flowers so they matched.

Flowers are tricky and that is why they are so expensive. I am sure this designer ordered the correct color, but due to the extremely warm temps, the flowers have not hit that stage. Nothing either party could do (wholesaler/retailer). The flowers looked gorgeous (photo found on web) and the stress of any wedding vendor is crazy. Unfortunately, you can’t control nature and being that the designer wanted to provide FRESH flowers for his client, it is hard to substitute different or new flowers (if they show up the wrong shade, etc) in such large quantities, a day before the wedding! These flowers need to be treated and designed. We are talking 22 table centerpieces AND other flowers. It sucks for both parties. I am sure the floral designer was aware the shade was not PERFECT, but what is he to do??? Bummer, but that is life and Nature. He did not do a “bait and switch” nor make any extra money here, he probably LOST money trying to correct the problem best he could!!!

Okay, let’s assume that florists have a tough job and a lot of pressure. And that flowers, being natural, are finicky and can come out the wrong color. Who should bear the cost of that risk? The customer, who may only order such a large and extravagant floral package once in their lives? Or the florist, who, by refunding the customer’s money because she did not provide the correct flower shade (or anything even close to it – the science of why doesn’t really matter when you’re dealing with a florist) can spread that risk among all her customers a small amount? It seems quite straightforward that the florist should have refunded the price in full at the very least but she did NOTHING of the sort – forcing the bride to litigate.

On the subject of risk, you might consider it from a different standpoint. Who is better able positioned to judge how MUCH is at risk? The customer who knows how much THEY value the correct color or the florist who deals with people having varied views of the issue? In other words, if you needed to buy “flower insurance” who is in the better position to decide how much coverage they needed? The Customer, how knows what it is worth to them or the florist, who would have to over charge those how value it less and make excessive payouts to those who Valued it more.

I have no problem with having the florist PRICE the insurance since, as you said, she is in the better position to know how often an adverse outcome is expected and the costs(Courier dispatched to Florida days before the wedding) to insure against it. If this is spelled out in detail, you can price based on it. But you can expect to pay though the nose if you REALLY want the exact shade and 99% of the time, the florist will clean up. Its that 1% you are paying for.