Deprince v. Starboard Cruise Services
271 So. 3d 11
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2013 a passenger, DePrince, agreed aboard a cruise ship to buy a 20.64‑carat loose diamond after Starboard quoted a price of $235,000; the store personnel and corporate office mistakenly believed the quoted figure was the total price, not a per‑carat price.
- After the sale and charge, Starboard discovered the price was per carat, notified DePrince, and reversed the charge; DePrince sued to enforce the contract.
- At trial the sole contested issue was Starboard’s affirmative defense of unilateral mistake; the jury found for Starboard and the trial court entered judgment accordingly.
- A panel (DePrince I / DePrince II) previously required proof that the mistake was induced by the party seeking to benefit, and reversed or remanded based on inducement‑related jury instructions.
- Starboard sought rehearing en banc to resolve intra‑district conflict about whether inducement is an element of unilateral mistake; the en banc court granted rehearing, vacated the panel opinion, and reconsidered the test.
- The en banc court held inducement is not a required element for rescission based on unilateral mistake, affirmed the judgment for Starboard, and receded from prior Third District decisions to the extent they required inducement.
Issues
| Issue | DePrince's Argument | Starboard's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is inducement (that the other party induced the mistake) a required element to rescind for unilateral mistake? | Rescission requires inducement by the benefiting party (per Lechuga/Rachid/DePrince I). | Krasnek and subsequent cases do not require inducement; only lack of due care, inequity, or detrimental reliance bar relief. | Inducement is not required; court receded from cases imposing it. |
| What is the correct multi‑part test for unilateral mistake? | (Implicit) Four‑prong test including inducement, no negligence, inequity, and no detrimental change of position. | The appropriate test is three parts drawn from Krasnek: no inexcusable lack of due care; rescission would not be inequitable; other party has not so changed position in reliance that rescission is unconscionable. | Court adopts the Krasnek‑based three‑part formulation (no inducement prong). |
| Was the jury verdict for Starboard supported by evidence? | (DePrince) Errors in instruction and evidence created reversible issues. | Evidence showed Starboard received erroneous price info from its home office; jury could find mistake not inexcusable and no unconscionable reliance by DePrince. | Competent substantial evidence supported the jury; no reversible evidentiary error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland Cas. Co. v. Krasnek, 174 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1965) (establishes that unilateral mistake can warrant rescission unless caused by inexcusable lack of care or inequitable reliance)
- DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 163 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (prior Third DCA panel applying four‑prong test including inducement)
- Lechuga v. Flanigan's Enters., Inc., 533 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (adopted four‑prong test requiring inducement)
- Rachid v. Perez, 26 So. 3d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (applied Lechuga’s four‑prong test for unilateral mistake)
- U.S. Alliance Corp. v. Tobon, 715 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (reads Krasnek without an inducement requirement)
- Penn. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 445 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (applies Krasnek to relieve party for unilateral mistake absent inexcusable negligence or detrimental reliance)
- In re Standard Jury Instructions — Contract & Bus. Cases, 116 So. 3d 284 (Fla. 2013) (Florida Supreme Court’s standard instruction on unilateral mistake consistent with Krasnek and not including an inducement element)