## Facts

- A cruise passenger, Thomas DePrince, sought to buy a 15–20 carat emerald-cut, high-quality diamond (color D–F) with a GIA certificate from a shipboard jewelry boutique operated by Starboard Cruise Services, Inc.
- Starboard’s corporate office, working through a vendor and broker, sourced candidate diamonds and relayed “selling price” figures to the ship’s manager.
- The quoted figures (including $235,000 for a 20.64-carat diamond) were per-carat prices, but Starboard personnel mistakenly understood them as total prices.
- DePrince consulted his partner and his sister (both gemologists); his sister warned that a diamond meeting the specifications should cost millions and that “something was wrong.”
- DePrince nonetheless agreed to buy the 20.64-carat diamond for $235,000 and paid by credit card.
- Starboard soon discovered the pricing mistake, notified DePrince, reversed the credit-card charges, and refused to complete the sale.
- DePrince sued to enforce the transaction; Starboard asserted unilateral mistake and sought rescission.
- A jury returned a verdict for Starboard. A prior appellate panel reversed on jury-instruction grounds, but the court granted rehearing en banc, vacated the panel opinion, and addressed conflicting intra-district precedent on unilateral mistake.

## Issues

1. Under Florida law, must a party seeking rescission for unilateral mistake prove that the non-mistaken party induced the mistake?
2. Under the correct unilateral-mistake standard, was Starboard entitled to rescind and avoid enforcement of the diamond sale at the mistaken price?

## Decision

- The en banc court held that inducement by the non-mistaken party is not an element of unilateral mistake in Florida.
- The court receded from prior Third District cases to the extent they required inducement as a prerequisite to rescission for unilateral mistake.
- Applying the clarified standard, the court affirmed the judgment for Starboard, permitting rescission of the transaction based on the material pricing error.

## Legal Principles

- Rescission may be available for unilateral mistake when equitable factors support relief, including that the mistake concerns a material fact, is not due to inexcusable lack of care, enforcement would be inequitable, and rescission would not unfairly prejudice detrimental reliance by the other party.
- Proof that the non-mistaken party induced or caused the mistake is not required to obtain rescission for unilateral mistake under Florida law.
- Equity may favor rescission where enforcing a contract at an obvious or extreme pricing error would create an unjust windfall.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed rescission of a diamond sale based on Starboard’s unilateral, material pricing mistake and clarified that Florida law does not require the mistaken party to prove inducement by the other party to obtain equitable relief.


DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 11 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018) (en banc)