DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Services, Inc.

In February 2013, cruise-ship passenger Thomas DePrince (plaintiff) visited the ship’s onboard jewelry boutique, which was operated by Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. (Starboard) (defendant). DePrince expressed interest in purchasing a 15- to 20-carat high-quality loose diamond. The boutique did not have that type of diamond on board, so the store’s manager emailed Starboard’s corporate office. A Starboard corporate employee contacted Starboard’s diamond vendor, who contacted a New York diamond broker to ask about available inventory that would meet DePrince’s specifications. The vendor selected two diamonds from the broker’s list—a 20.64-carat with a “selling price” of $235,000 and a 20.73-carat with a “selling price” of $245,000—and emailed the information about the diamonds to the Starboard corporate employee. The corporate employee sent the information to the boutique manager, who presented the information to DePrince. Unbeknownst to the corporate employee and the boutique manager, the “selling price” was per carat instead of for the entire diamond. DePrince sought advice about the purchase from his partner and sister, both gemologists. DePrince’s sister warned DePrince that something was wrong because a 20-carat diamond that met DePrince’s specifications should have cost millions. Nevertheless, DePrince contracted with Starboard to purchase the 20.64-carat diamond for $235,000 and paid for the diamond by credit card. Starboard subsequently realized that the price was $235,000 per carat. Starboard immediately notified DePrince and reversed the credit-card charges. However, DePrince sued Starboard in Florida state court to enforce the sale contract as made. Starboard sought to rescind the contract on the grounds of unilateral mistake. At trial, the court instructed the jury that to establish unilateral mistake, Starboard had to prove that DePrince had induced the mistake through misrepresentations, statements, or omissions because DePrince had wanted to benefit from the mistake. The jury found in Starboard’s favor, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court’s jury instruction was incorrect because an omission of information could not constitute inducement for unilateral-mistake purposes. Starboard moved for rehearing en banc in the appellate court, arguing that Florida caselaw was unclear regarding whether inducement was even a required element of a unilateral-mistake defense.