In 2023, after representatives inspected merchandise held by a Florida apparel reseller, Gap presented a precise-looking answer: plus-size garments accounted for approximately 25 to 30 percent of the Old Navy assortment. SVES had counted something radically different. Its physical inventory showed that more than 90 percent of the merchandise was extended-size product.
A percentage without a trail
The calculation moved from a warehouse into a California courtroom, where a Phase I bench proceeding examined a later settlement dispute. For the purpose of the legal issue before it, the court treated Gap's 25-30% representation as false. More damaging to the credibility of the number was the court's observation that the record did not explain how Gap had produced it.
A national retailer produced a number about its own merchandise, but the record could not trace the calculation behind it.
One shipment, three realities
The 25-30% figure was only the middle number. Court materials describe negotiations centered on roughly 500,000 plus-size units, with the possibility of another 500,000 in later orders. The purchase-order inventory reflected fewer than approximately one million. SVES says the processed merchandise eventually revealed eight to nine million extended-size units.
- Approximately 500,000 to one million plus-size units discussed and reflected in the purchase-order inventory.
- Approximately 25-30% represented by Gap after the 2023 inspection.
- More than 90% reported through SVES's physical inventory count.
The credibility test
Inventory systems exist to connect a purchase order to a distribution center, a trailer, a carton and a unit. The unexplained percentage matters because Gap controlled each upstream record while SVES could see the true composition only after opening and sorting the goods. When the three counts diverged, the smaller company carried the merchandise and Gap retained the data capable of settling the question.
The issue is no longer whether the numbers differ. They do. The issue is why the largest party in the transaction could not place a documented calculation behind the percentage it used when the relationship was already in crisis.
