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 price. After the buyer accepted, the seller repudiated. The court reversed summary judgment for the seller, finding factual disputes regarding the defense of unilateral mistake.
Legal Significance: This case provides a comprehensive analysis of the varying legal tests for unilateral mistake, clarifying that a mistaken party’s negligence and the non-mistaken party’s knowledge versus inducement are critical, fact-intensive inquiries that often preclude summary judgment.
DePrince v. Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Thomas DePrince, while on a cruise, inquired about purchasing a large diamond from an onboard shop operated by Defendant Starboard Cruise Services, Inc. Starboard’s employee contacted its corporate office, which in turn contacted its supplier, Fiori. Fiori emailed a price of “$235,000” for a 20.64-carat diamond. Starboard’s employee, believing this was the total price, conveyed the offer to DePrince. DePrince, despite being advised by his gemologist partner and sister that the price was “too good to be true,” accepted the offer. The parties executed a written sales agreement for $235,000, and DePrince paid in full. Starboard later discovered Fiori’s quote was the per-carat price, making the diamond’s actual value approximately $4.85 million. Starboard informed DePrince of the pricing error, refunded his payment, and repudiated the contract. DePrince sued for breach of contract and specific performance. Starboard asserted the affirmative defense of unilateral mistake. The trial court granted summary judgment for Starboard.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can a seller obtain summary judgment to rescind a contract based on a unilateral mistake in price where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the seller’s own negligence and whether the buyer induced the mistake?
No. The court reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that genuine 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
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 in price where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the seller’s own negligence and whether the buyer induced the mistake?
Conclusion
The case underscores that rescission for unilateral mistake is a fact-intensive inquiry, 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
Legal Rule
To rescind a contract for unilateral mistake, the mistaken party must prove: 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 ess
Legal Analysis
The court reversed summary judgment because Starboard failed to conclusively prove the 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 officia deserunt mollit an
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Court reversed summary judgment for a seller who mistakenly priced a