Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P visited an onboard jewelry shop that is wholly owned and operated by D. P expressed some interest in a large loose diamond of 15-20 carats to the manager of the store, Rusan, who sent an email inquiry D's corporate office in Miami. The Miami Office relayed the information to Fiori, who had put gems on consignment with D, to determine a price for such an order. Fiori's email described the diamonds precisely as follows: 1. EMERALD CUT 20.64 carats D VVS2 GIA VG Price $235,000, 2. EMERALD CUT 20.73 carats E VVS2 GIA EX EX FNT Price $245,000. The pricing was relayed to P, and he said he would think about it. That night, P spoke with his life partner, Vernon Crawford, a certified gemologist who was on the cruise with P, and also P's sister, Carolyn DePrince, who holds the highest available degree in gemology. Both advised P against making the purchase, telling him that the sale price was too good to be true and that the price for a diamond that large should be at least $2 million. P opted to complete the transaction. The agreements were signed for the $235,000 diamond and P put down an initial down payment of $125,000 on the spot and paid the balance ($110,025) the next day. Soon after the sale was completed, D learned that Fiori's $235,000 price quote in the email was the per carat price for the diamond rather than the total price for the diamond ($4,850,400). Five days later, D contacted P and explained that the price was in serious error. P demanded that the sale be completed as specified in the sales agreement. D refunded P's money and repudiated the contract. P sued for specific performance, breach of contract, and conversion. D claimed unilateral mistake and that P had known about the error the whole time due to his extensive experience with jewelry. D moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it on all the claims. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co