Jesus H Christ! I wonder if Judge Pearson was on the guest list. Check out this stupid cunt-elope: Attorney Bride Sues Florist For $400,000
After enough billing hours accrue and this joke of a lawsuit is thrown out of court, hopefully our slighted plaintiff is made to be the defendant’s legal fees and disbarred before she sues her parents for giving her that god-awful honker (which undoubtedly clashed with her vale alot more than the hydrangeas).
Bridezilla lives (or in this case, Wifezilla). No pic in link, though.
I thought all florists had essentially the same disclaimer–due to natural variations etc, no exact matches were guaranteed. The florist says he told her so (it should be in the contract). I do wonder why they didn’t think of dying the flowers to match–for $27 grand a bit of dye wouldn’t be amiss.
Don’t see no pix of said honker. Are you perhaps inferring something from her location/profession/name/attitude? :dubious:
Couldn’t see the pic either, but I love this line:
"The use of predominantly pastel centerpieces had a significant impact on the look of the room and was entirely inconsistent with the vision the plaintiffs had bargained for…”
I’ve been in that place for a luncheon. Gorgeous place.
I had to do it of course. Thanks google for finding a picture.
From the blog:
Listen, if I paid $27,000 for flowers they DAMN WELL better be exactly what I ordered.
Seriously. She was clearly willing to pay a higher price to get a very specific product. Why is it “bridezilla” if she demands what she paid a hell of a lot of money for, and not any ol’ thing the florist had around?
The burden of proof is on her. If what she got at the wedding was outside the range of natural genetic variance of rust-colored whatchamadoozits and were in fact pink-colored fargnoozinors, then she can present her case that that is so.
Also, anybody who pays $27,000 for flowers and then admits it in a public court filing deserves all the scorn they get.
I don’t agree with her choices but they were hers to make. Paying more doesn’t mean you’re entitled to less. “Rust” is not a typical color for hydrangeas – If the florist said she could deliver them, and never intended to, that is fraud. According to a more detailed article,
“Elana e-mailed Arakas attaching a picture of a particular hydrangea - a green hydrangea with red tips, sometimes called antique hydrangea, or rust hydrangea - and asked Arakas if that particular flower would be available in that particular color in August for her wedding. Arakas responded in an e-mail that she could provide the ‘exact’ same color,” the suit says.
OF COURSE the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her case; on the other hand I have no problem whatsoever believing that the florist f-ed up or outright lied. The wedding industry is full of snakes, cheats, and exploiters.
From the fact that she’s Jewish, I’m supposing. Classy OP, no? :dubious:
Hello Again:
Fine, so let her sue for the return of her $27,000. To sue for fifteen times that much is to recoup damage to what, her esthetic sensibilities? The wedding can’t be undone, and won’t be redone to conform to her dream color scheme, so what’s she demanding all this extra money for? I sympathize with her disappointment, but I can’t support her side in the lawsuit.
Classy OP? Sorry if it doesn’t meet the high standards laid out in the MPSIMS forum guidelines. As far as your dubious smiley and inane suppositions, I suggest you shelve them.
Well, maybe the amount she is seeking is unreasonable, but her cause of action is not.
Well, why don’t shelve your pleasant comments about the way Jewish people look and we’ll be square.
“be” the defendant’s legal fees?
Vale?
Alot?
I realize this is like spitting in the wind, but:
She’s alleging fraud, not breach of contract. Fraud as in:
[ul][li]She emailed the florist a picture of the centerpieces she wanted and specified a particular flower – not color, but flower – that she wanted. Before she entered into the contract, the florist assured her he could deliver the goods.[/li]
[li]She had a “dry run” with the florist, where the florist supplied her with a sample centerpiece (using the precise flower she’d specified), and assured her that if she approved, all the centerpieces would look like that. She paid $1,000 for the dry run.[/li]
[li]On the day of the wedding, the florist delivered centerpieces that were not the ones agreed upon.[/ul][/li]
That’s known colloquially as a “bait and switch.” In the biz, we call it “fraud in the inducement.”
And the fact that she happens to be an attorney who can afford $27,000 in flowers for her wedding is irrelevant. It simply means that she hired a florist for whom a $27,000 floral job was do-able, and who should make good on what he promised.
But I suppose it’s more fun to burn the witch.
Um, I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouth*, but I’m assuming JohnBck found her picture elsewhere (she does, in fact, have quite a wide nose), but chose to post a more verbose link that didn’t happen to have a picture.
I would never have associated her maiden name with Judaism. I Googled it, and it looks like maybe half of the hits are Jewish. Where are you finding this anti-semitism, Hello Again?
And back to the OP, I’d have to agree with those who say that for that much money, they’d better deliver what they promise.
Upon my preliminary reading, I’d say she would certainly be within her rights to allege breach of contract.
*Note: I’ll do it anyway.
Off to the Pit.
…but that’s her husband’s name. You can’t get a Jewish nose from marrying a Jew, can you? Do the horns also transfer over?
Sorry. People finding non-existant bigotry annoy me to no end. But I’ll accept if I’m actually out of line here.
FTR: Her maiden name is Elbogen, which seems to be a pretty standard Austrian name: sometimes Jewish, sometimes not.
First of all, she didn’t pay a penny for the flowers, her mother-in-law did. Not only that, [
](Something Borrowed, Something to Sue - Gothamist) Maybe she didn’t get what she wanted, but perhaps she got exactly what her mother-in-law was willing to pay for.
So far, all we have are her allegations and his contradictions, along with a grossly over-inflated lawsuit. That last part is the part that gets under my craw the most. Bitch didn’t suffer $400,000.00 worth of damages, pain and “suffering.” Please.
(ETA – deleted superfluous link already provided above)