Found this very interesting read over at NY Mag blog about a man who spent thousands on Louis Vuitton prints made of the same material used for its Murakami bags (not sure what rock he’s been living under but clearly he should have consulted The Bag Snob before making his purchase). According to the article the investor, Clint Arthur, alleges that “Vuitton did not disclose that the prints were made from scraps and had full intent to deceive their customers”. The case will go to court next week. I can’t wait to hear the outcome. If he wins, he could receive 12 million in damages!?!? Louis Vuitton available online at eLUXURY.com, he could have saved thousands and bought a bag ready made and put it in a glass case.
So, let’s discuss. I’ll go first. I think this is a frivolous lawsuit. Anyone can put a scrap of leather in a frame and call it art, if you’re not savvy enough to do your research before purchasing, you have only yourself to blame. Now, your turn. What do you think, does this Arthur guy deserve $12 million in damages against Louis Vuitton?
Photo source: Louis Vuitton
I thought most people know the LV logo and material by now? The man sounds like he’s out to make a quick buck.
No way!!!
He should not get a dime. A refund maybe, returning the item of course,
but no lawsuit.That is what make s prices high in the first place,
frivolous lawsuits
Okay- Is this guy an idiot? I LOVE Louis Vuitton but even I wouldn’t spend that much on “art”. He shouldn’t be allowed to take them to court if he was too stupid to ask about the prints. Would you buy a car or some big ticket item with out researching it or talking to the sales person or a friend ? I don’t even buy a bag without putting all the crap from my bag in it and then try it on to get the feel! So Mr. Clint Arthur stick to what you know – butter – and next time ask some questions first. xoxoxo
The point is that there was a clause that said that Murakami retouched these scraps before framing them or whatever when he didn’t.
why LV had failed to provide information about the artworks required under California’s Fine Prints Act though?
That guy has a point.
This Arthur guy is definitely the biggest scam in the world. He definitely does not deserve even a penny!
Basically, he’s trying to scam the scammer. I mean, come on, how dumb can you be to claim you didn’t know the “art canvas” is the same stuff as the bag materials. Bernard Arnault will never allow a single cent to compensate this lawsuit.
But why would Vuitton classify these “scraps” as “art” and place them in L.A.’s Museum of Contemporary Art?
Lina also has a point. Why would Vuitton not provide information about the artworks?
And an ‘art canvas’ can definitely be different from a bag material -> Van Gogh painting vs printed cavas ???
believe it or not, some people really have no idea and can’t tell the difference btw murakami and guccissima. it is understandable he did NOT know the “art” he bought was just a bag scrap.
i’m not a lawyer so i cna’t say who’s right or wrong, but seriously, i woudn’t be caught dead in anything monogram (especially Coach).
Agree with Lina but 12 million seems high hen he did not suffer any physical nor mental duress
I think what’s fair is the profit he expected from it
$20,000 feels fair
I just finished my first year of law school on Friday, and I would have to say that Mr. Arthur is shit out of luck: caveat emptor (the buyer beware) applies.
Well that ‘just finished my first year of law school’ line explains a lot. It is not strictly speaking a defect we are talking about here. It’s not a broken kettle but a piece of art and it’s certainly more complicated than you think.
also,based on your view on this matter the other party could say that Caveat venditor applies.
Be sure to go back for years 2 and 3….
As you continue on in law school, please remember that ‘caveat emptor’ does NOT mean ” we can mess with you up, down, and sideways unless you are a genius who is able to predict any malicious things we may do beforehand and stop us before we do them”
Said another way, be careful is not the same thing as a free pass for a company to screw someone.
bh
I agree, it’s frivolous. I hate this kind of lawsuit and 12 million is ridiculous.
‘Caveat emptor’ does not cover when a company makes false promises about an item, particularly when one is dealing with a large company such as LV. LV represented the artwork sold to this man as having been retouched by Murakami, it was not, therefore he has a valid case for fraud and as such for recovery of the purchase price. The most valid remedy for fraud is to make the buyer whole again-to refund all or part of the purchase price..while there may be punitive damages, I HIGHLY doubt that said damages would be millions of dollars. The fraud is just not that egregious. It sounds like LV simply somehow got its wires crossed on this one-I can’t imagine that they would be making so much money off of this ‘art’ (not exactly their main source of revenue) that it would be worth it to them to purposely lie about it.
LOL
very funny divaliscious11!
Be sure to go back for years 2 and 3… hahahhahaha
The louis vuitton handbags has some definite strong points.
* The leather is nice and smooth.
* louis vuitton handbags are not the cheapest which adds to their exclusivity.
* It goes without saying that they are made to the most exacting standards using the highest quality materials.
* This extends the life of the bag which should give years of use and pleasure.
Thanks
Louis Vuitton Handbags
http://www.designerhandbaghire.com