We are pleased to announce a significant victory for Bernhard Law Firm in a high-profile luxury jewelry case involving a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). In this case, the firm successfully defended a jeweler against a buyer’s FDUTPA claims, while securing a favorable judgment on the jeweler’s counterclaim for breach of contract. Florida Bar Disclaimer: Results may not be typical. Every case is unique, and the outcome of your case may differ depending on the facts and circumstances involved. If you have questions about FDUTPA litigation, jewelry disputes, breach of contracts, or unfair and deceptive business practices, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at www.bernhardlawfirm.com, abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, or 786-871-3349.

[KEEP READING BELOW IMAGE]

Case Overview:

As gleaned from the filings in the case: the buyer, a wealthy and well-educated real estate magnate with extensive experience in appraisals and due diligence, purchased a Sylva & Cie designer jewelry art piece from the luxury jewelry retailer in January 2020. The buyer, who had been a frequent passerby of the store and its luxury setting for over 15 years, engaged in a two-month period of negotiation and due diligence before finalizing the purchase at a price $90,000 below the manufacturer’s retail price of $350,000.00.

The buyer confirmed her satisfaction with the transaction and agreed to the terms of a “Final Sale – No Returns” policy, which was clearly noted on the receipt. Despite initially expressing happiness with her purchase, the buyer later experienced what she described as a “purely insane” bout of buyer’s remorse. She then sought to rescind the transaction by claiming the jeweler had violated FDUTPA, alleging deceptive business practices and misrepresentation of the jewelry’s value.

The Bernhard Law Firm vigorously defended the jeweler, arguing that the buyer’s claims lacked both legal merit and factual support. The firm also counter-sued the buyer for breach of contract, pointing to the buyer’s clear violation of the agreed-upon terms.

The Appellate Court’s Decision:

The appellate court sided with the Bernhard Law Firm’s arguments, ruling in favor of the jeweler. Bernhard Law Firm‘s appellate argument was based on several key points:

1. Lack of Admissible Evidence of Actual Damages:
   The buyer was unable to demonstrate actual damages. Despite claiming that the jewelry was overpriced, the buyer had purchased the piece based on her own admiration for its beauty. Independent expert testimony confirmed that the jewelry was sold at a fair retail price, far below industry markup, and comparable to similar items sold at luxury retailers.
2. No Causation of Deceptive Practices:
   There was no evidence linking the jeweler’s conduct to the buyer’s alleged damages. The buyer, an educated and experienced purchaser with significant knowledge of luxury jewelry, had ample opportunity to conduct due diligence before making the purchase. The buyer made an informed decision and that any regret was not the result of any deceptive or unfair business practices.
3. No Deceptive Business Practices:
   The buyer had alleged that the jeweler engaged in deceptive business practices, but the court rejected these claims. The jeweler had merely disseminated the manufacturer’s price tag and product details in good faith, and no misrepresentation was made. Statements about the jewelry’s value were supported by industry standards and were truthful, which meant they could not form the basis of a FDUTPA violation.
4. Affirmation of Counterclaim for Breach of Contract:
   In addition to dismissing the FDUTPA claims, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision on the jeweler’s counterclaim for breach of contract. The court found that the buyer had breached the enforceable contract by attempting to void the sale without justification, which caused the jeweler financial losses. The buyer’s actions directly contradicted the terms of the “Final Sale – No Returns” agreement, and the court upheld the damages awarded to the jeweler.

Conclusion:

This appellate victory underscores the importance of contract enforcement and the protections available to businesses against baseless FDUTPA claims. In this case, the buyer’s attempt to rescind a fair and transparent transaction was thoroughly rebuffed, with the appellate court affirming the legitimacy of the jeweler’s business practices and the enforceability of the sale.

At Bernhard Law Firm, we are committed to defending our clients’ rights and securing fair outcomes in complex commercial disputes. This case highlights our ability to effectively challenge unfounded claims and enforce contracts, even when the other side is a seasoned and sophisticated buyer.

Florida Bar Disclaimer: Results may not be typical. Every case is unique, and the outcome of your case may differ depending on the facts and circumstances involved. If you have questions about FDUTPA litigation, jewelry disputes, breach of contracts, or unfair and deceptive business practices, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at www.bernhardlawfirm.com, abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, or 786-871-3349.