Wretched Excess, and/or, would you sue?

Great idea to have them in pots - and then they raffle them off at each table... I;m likin' it...

I don't see that as more expensive, given a shipment from, say Monrovia Nursery at wholesale, but I dunno.

Sorry, tangent.

I wouldn't spend that kind of money for flowers but I do understand the bride's disappointment. It sounds like she was going for something deeper and richer and those pastel flowers just didn't fit into her vision. I can dig it. I'm not a big fan of pastels either and if they showed up at my wedding, on every table, in all of my pictures, I'd be ready to sue somebody. ESPECIALLY if I'd dropped 27,000.00 on them.

Word is that the florist is likely to countersue (not sure on what basis). This could go on forever.

I haven't seen them, but the florist forum reports that there are pictures and that the arrangements were wonderful. There are also reports that the bride has a history of non-payment and credit problems. Also, apparently there was no contract. Stupid people. Who buys something for $27k without a contract (bride/lawyer) or supplies something without one (florist)?

Appreciating the inside info!

Agreed about double stupidity. $27,000, have a contract, geesh!

Very interesting...

Until Tico's last post, my thinking was right along with Jes from the beginning...feelings of excess and the fact they are "just flowers"...she got something significantly different than what she paid for.

That said, if 27K was going to be spent on flowers, if I was the florist OR the client, I would have had plan B, and a plan C ready to go into place, if plan A didn't work out.

Tico sez hydrangas are a nightmare, and I believe Tico. Since the florist would have known this flower was a dicey proposition, I would have insisted with make alternate plans with other flowers and colors, in case it didn't work out.

If I was the bride, I would have insisted on the florist proposing at least 2 alternatives, in case rust and dark green, or that particular flower wasn't available.

I absolutely do not believe there were no pictures taken of the offending flowers.

On a personal level, learning the bride has a bad reputation with vendors and credit, it doesn't surprise me that she didn't insist on a contract, and there are no pictures available. People who like to cheat like to keep the facts fuzzy.

I did vote that I sided with the plantiff...not for the amount though.

The amount being sued for is nuts. But recognize that that's just an opening figure. When this matter is settled or a verdict comes in, it'll be for a lot less than $400k.

As for a lack of a written contract, it kinda doesn't matter, and it kinda does, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-201

I have a lot of trouble believing that there's absolutely nada in writing. There may be a signed receipt or a cancelled check, or evidence of a wire transfer. Or a bill of sale -- that'll probably do. The court is probably not going to limit damages to $5k, particularly because an equitable remedy (such as an injunction or a requirement of specific performance) won't fly as the wedding is over and cannot be duplicated (don't tell me about renewing vows; the court will not see it that way).

Plus, the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) applies here because it applies in 49 states and DC and big chunks of it apply in Louisiana, but the services portion of the business arrangement does not come under the UCC. Services include things like delivering the flowers, arranging them, that sort of thing.

I still say it's judgment for plaintiff, although she'll have more trouble proving her claims than I'd originally believed. Those problems with proof are her own damned fault.