DEPRINCE v. STARBOARD CRUISE SERVICES, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A cruise line mistakenly offered a multi-million dollar diamond for a fraction of its value. The buyer accepted, despite warnings the price was too low. The court reversed summary judgment for the seller, finding factual disputes regarding the defense of unilateral mistake.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies and compares three tests for unilateral mistake, establishing that a buyer’s knowledge of a potential error does not automatically permit rescission, especially when the seller’s own negligence in making the mistake is a disputed factual issue.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Thomas DePrince, a cruise passenger, inquired about purchasing a large diamond from an onboard shop operated by Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. A Starboard employee, unfamiliar with such transactions, requested pricing from Starboard’s supplier, Sophia Fiori. Fiori responded via email with a price of “$235,000” for a 20.64-carat diamond, failing to specify this was the per-carat price. Believing this was the total price, the Starboard employee offered the diamond to DePrince for $235,000. DePrince’s gemologist partner and sister advised him that the price was “too good to be true” and the diamond should cost over $2 million. DePrince proceeded with the purchase, executing a written sales agreement and paying in full. Five days later, Starboard discovered the error—the diamond’s actual price was over $4.8 million—and repudiated the contract, refunding DePrince’s payment. DePrince sued for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court granted summary judgment for Starboard, finding a unilateral mistake sufficient for rescission.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a seller obtain summary judgment to rescind a contract based on a unilateral mistake of fact where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the seller’s own negligence and whether the buyer induced the mistake?
No. Summary judgment is improper because genuine issues of material fact remain Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can a seller obtain summary judgment to rescind a contract based on a unilateral mistake of fact where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the seller’s own negligence and whether the buyer induced the mistake?
Conclusion
This case illustrates the high bar for rescinding a contract based on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptat
Legal Rule
To rescind a contract for unilateral mistake, the mistaken party must show Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui of
Legal Analysis
The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment, finding that Starboard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui o
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Reverses summary judgment for a seller who mistakenly priced a $4.8M