Dishonest salesperson forcing the customer into a contract...

[Blutodidit]

I think that Latigo was talking about the saleslady using untrue misrepresentations in order to sell the wedding dress. False misrepresentations is fraudulent, so, in my opinion, a person should be able to address it in court, if they can prove that fraud was committed.

 

[quincy]

I think that Latigo was talking about the saleslady using untrue misrepresentations in order to sell the wedding dress. False misrepresentations is fraudulent, so, in my opinion, a person should be able to address it in court, if they can prove that fraud was committed.

That is certainly a possibility. It would be nice if latigo would come back to actually say what he meant, though, instead of providing a rather cryptic post and running, leaving us to guess.

It would be hard to prove misrepresentation. Stores operate differently, have different suppliers, different stocks, different prices, different contract terms. The bride chose the bridal store and agreed to purchase the dress under the "no cancellation, exchange or refund" terms of sale. Although 5 months before a wedding is not a lot of time to order a wedding dress and have time for needed alterations, and the bride may have panicked a bit by purchasing before looking at other stores first, she did what she did.

From what was posted by xesium, I personally do not see that there was any fraud or misrepresentation - none that could be easily proved, at any rate, or that is likely to get the bride out of her signed agreement with the bridal store.

Come back, latigo! Explain your post!!

 

[Just Blue]

I think that Latigo was talking about the saleslady using untrue misrepresentations in order to sell the wedding dress. False misrepresentations is fraudulent, so, in my opinion, a person should be able to address it in court, if they can prove that fraud was committed.

Ya know...in general when a member has a first posting it is regarding his or her own situation. IMHO I find it a bit odd you joined to explain latigo. Odd that.

 

[Blutodidit]

Ya know...in general when a member has a first posting it is regarding his or her own situation. IMHO I find it a bit odd you joined to explain latigo. Odd that.

I understand what you are saying. I did have a question I wanted to post concerning an incidental legal matter I had, but it was already answered as I looked over the part of the forum that would address my problem. After that, I registered.

 

[quincy]

None of us have ever been able to explain latigo p), so it is nice that you happened along, Blutodidit.

 

[Proserpina]

Ya know...in general when a member has a first posting it is regarding his or her own situation. IMHO I find it a bit odd you joined to explain latigo. Odd that.

Isn't it though?

 

[Proserpina]

Lest this turns into one more 40-page thread of nonsense, please allow me to simplify what my post was about.

John and Betty wanted to buy a wedding dress, with only a few months to the wedding.

Betty went to Bob's Dresses and saw "the one". Instead of taking notes of the manufacturer, style # and all of that good stuff, Betty succumbed to the hard-sell and ended up buying it there and then. Was Betty legally obliged to do so? No, no she was not. But we'll come back to that in a second.

Once Betty and John had made the purchase (which included a very common, and quite, quite legal, "no refund" clause), there were second thoughts after the sales-person (let's call her Willhemina) added certain extra costs relating to how THEIR store manages late buys, expedited delivery and all of that good stuff.

Upon researching, Betty and John found the exact same dress at a different store for a lower price and now feel like they're being ripped off.

There are a couple of points here (in case we're still unclear).

1. What happened was fairly typical of bridal stores. Take one somewhat-desperate bride who knows she hasn't got much time left to choose, add Willhemina the very canny and perhaps even unethical sales-person who is not just experienced but is quite adept at "sniffing out" such customers and using that against them, and you have created the perfect storm.

2. While perhaps not the most ethical of monsters, Willhemina did nothing illegal. At all. Betty was free to leave the store at any time, just as she was free to look for the same dress elsewhere before she handed over her money.

3. Did we cover where nothing illegal happened?

4. Nothing illegal happened.

5. Cars are not wedding dresses.

6. (Nothing illegal happened here)

7. John and Betty didn't do their homework beforehand. While not legally required to do so, it does help.

8. (Still nothing illegal happened)

9. As sneaky as Willhemina the Wily Weddingdress Wench was, there was no misrepresentation of the dress itself. Those who wish to, may Google the term. The dress was indeed made by Most Excellent Designer, and was indeed of the stated size and fabric. Charging the duck's tail over the "normal" price is not illegal.

You're welcome!

 

[anearthw]

So, did she buy a different dress or is she going to use this one?

If what Latigo says is generally true (and I do not disagree) - comparing this situation to car misrepresentation - is she going to try and take this company to court and demand a refund/return of the dress after the wedding?

 

[Proserpina]

So, did she buy a different dress or is she going to use this one?

If what Latigo says is generally true (and I do not disagree) - comparing this situation to car misrepresentation - is she going to try and take this company to court and demand a refund/return of the dress after the wedding?

Judgment in favor of the defendant.

(If anyone would like more details on how bridal boutiques can pull this stuff and get away with it because "underhanded" does not equate to "illegal", just holler. I'd be glad to share the joys of being married to the brother of a Philly-based boutique owner. That was a hoot. No, really)

 

[anearthw]

Judgment in favor of the defendant.

Absolutely, because (wait for it, bad wedding pun), the bride can't have her cake and eat it too.

 

[Eekamouse]

Ba dump dump pish!

 

[Proserpina]

Absolutely, because (wait for it, bad wedding pun), the bride can't have her cake and eat it too.

And anearthw wins the Interwebz!

Well done

 

[quincy]

Although both xesium's post and latigo's post sort of dance around this, and the facts as presented by xesium do not demonstrate the following to be present in xesium's situation, there has been a suit filed against a famous bridal store chain claiming some of the stores in the chain violate the state consumer protection laws.

The suit filed accuses the store chain of fraud, misrepresentation of products and breach of contract. The suit claims the plaintiff-bride special-ordered a gown and paid a premium for the special order that was to be shipped directly from the manufacturer - and because her wedding was only a short-time off, the need for speedy delivery was important to her. The dress, apparently, was available at another of the chain's stores, so the cost of purchase was artificially inflated.

As an additional note to any grooms who develop cold feet shortly before a planned wedding, backing out of the wedding can be costly. Suits have been won by brides when the panicked grooms decide they do not want to marry and the jilted brides decide to sue the ex-grooms to recover all costs expended in planning for the wedding. With dress, accessories, wedding planner, venue, music, flowers, photographer, food all being paid for well in advance of a wedding, and most having no-refund policies, a groom could be faced with costs that easily exceed his annual income.

Just something to think about before setting a date, perhaps.

 

[Proserpina]

Although both xesium's post and latigo's post sort of dance around this, and the facts as presented by xesium do not demonstrate the following to be present in xesium's situation, there has been a suit filed against a famous bridal store chain claiming some of the stores in the chain violate the state consumer protection laws.

The suit filed accuses the store chain of fraud, misrepresentation of products and breach of contract. The suit claims the plaintiff-bride special-ordered a gown and paid a premium for the special order that was to be shipped directly from the manufacturer - and because her wedding was only a short-time off, the need for speedy delivery was important to her. The dress, apparently, was available at another of the chain's stores, so the cost of purchase was artificially inflated.

As an additional note to any grooms who develop cold feet shortly before a planned wedding, backing out of the wedding can be costly. Suits have been won by brides when the panicked grooms decide they do not want to marry and the jilted brides decide to sue the ex-grooms to recover all costs expended in planning for the wedding. With dress, accessories, wedding planner, venue, music, flowers, photographer, food all being paid for well in advance of a wedding, and most having no-refund policies, a groom could be faced with costs that easily exceed his annual income.

Just something to think about before setting a date, perhaps.

Would that be the suit filed against ... A Man's Name Bridal? IIRC, the key point there was that a different store of the same chain ruined the buzz for ..uh...A Man's Name Bridal.

There have been several suits against the same entity, but I can't find a single suit that has been decided in favor of the plaintiff when the suit actually pertains to an unrelated vendor offering the same dress cheaper.

(Though since the defendant often does settle out of court, I suppose that could be seen as in the plaintiff's favor )


Of course not getting married would solve the issue completely

 

[quincy]

Would that be the suit filed against ... A Man's Name Bridal? ...

Is anyone named "Warehouse" (other than, perhaps, a celebrity baby or two)?

No. It is not "Man's Name" Bridal. The suit I am talking about was filed by a woman (Kristy Witak) this month in Louisville, Kentucky (Jefferson Circuit Court), as a class action against Bridal Warehouse.

The facts of Witak's case do not in any way seem to fit the facts of what xesium has presented to us here, however.