Holiday dispute

HardSpend

I think it is reasonable to expect them to pay for a holiday before they go on holiday. At least some of it but I've not even had a response since I asked for my money back so not even a compromise

phlogeston

pinkshoes wrote: »

If they refuse, you have the option of small claims court to get your money back, but need to work out what is more important - the money or the friend. Saying that, they don't sound like much of a friend...

To take someone to the 'small claims court' you need to have a valid claim.

Could someone explain at what point in the whole saga an unambiguous agreement was formed between 2 parties?

The booking was made by one party (the friend's Mum)
The agreement was between two other parties (the friend & OP)
The money was paid to yet another party (the friend's Dad).

The 'agreement' was between friends. It is essential that there is an 'intention to create a legal relationship', for a valid contract to be formed. I am not sure that this essential criterion is fulfilled.

The OP then sought to vary the agreement, but it is not clear how clear or specific the variation was. The OP was available to go on the holiday, but chose not to, BUT would go if had to!!!

The cost of cancelling was greater than changing the name, so the OP is in a better position than just cancelling.

So at what point was any clear, legally binding agreement reached between all parties involved?

The OP has lost a friend not worth having.

The OP has prevaricated and as a result lost a holiday that wasn't wanted.

Best to learn some valuable lessons and move on.

pinkshoes

phlogeston wrote: »

To take someone to the 'small claims court' you need to have a valid claim.

Could someone explain at what point in the whole saga an unambiguous agreement was formed between 2 parties?

The booking was made by one party (the friend's Mum)
The agreement was between two other parties (the friend & OP)
The money was paid to yet another party (the friend's Dad).

The 'agreement' was between friends. It is essential that there is an 'intention to create a legal relationship', for a valid contract to be formed. I am not sure that this essential criterion is fulfilled.

The OP then sought to vary the agreement, but it is not clear how clear or specific the variation was. The OP was available to go on the holiday, but chose not to, BUT would go if had to!!!

The cost of cancelling was greater than changing the name, so the OP is in a better position than just cancelling.

So at what point was any clear, legally binding agreement reached between all parties involved?

The OP has lost a friend not worth having.

The OP has prevaricated and as a result lost a holiday that wasn't wanted.

Best to learn some valuable lessons and move on.

The OP paid £550 to go on holiday.

The OP got "dumped" by this person, but said if they couldn't find anyone else, then they'd still go.

The person then found someone else, and had to pay an extra £50 to have the name removed.

At no point was a partial refund or cancellation an option, as the OP has always stated that they were still willing to go on the holiday if another person couldn't be found.

It's basic common sense that if someone takes the place of another, then they pay the same.

If the OP couldn't or refused to go, then that would be a different matter...

Freddie_Snowbits

pinkshoes wrote: »

The OP paid £550 to go on holiday.

Wrong, OP says friend mum had given others dad some money. The said they did not want to go!

Whe is our Dave Booker on this one.

Lesson N0 1 in Life's rich tapestry.

Note added June 2010. I now support OP in this matter, I have left the above as it was for completeness of the thread.

HardSpend

Not sure I follow Freddie? In my opinion there was clearly a contract formed once I had paid the £547 into a bank account which my friend told me was their dads. My friends mum paid for the whole holiday in the first place, whether this was out of the same account I paid into I don't know. It is quite possibly the same account since they are married.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

HardSpend wrote: »

Not sure I follow Freddie? In my opinion there was clearly a contract formed once I had paid the £547 into a bank account which my friend told me was their dads. My friends mum paid for the whole holiday in the first place, whether this was out of the same account I paid into I don't know. It is quite possibly the same account since they are married.

That agreement was for you to go on holiday. You then changed your mind and agreed that if someone else could go then fine otherwise you would go - no mention of cash.

They did this.

In all honesty I agree anything you get is a bonus. In law you will get nowhere and its all far too ambigous.

If you can get something in writing that the new person will pay you all or some of the cost on return I would go for it as thats actually enforceable.

Tozer

There is clearly an arrangement whereby it would be inequitable for OP not to have money back - or go on holiday. Clearly, he cannot now go on the holiday so it would be unjust enrichment for somebody else to benefit from it.

If there was an arrangement whereby the booker of the holiday agreed that if someone else could be found then OP would not be liable, then it is that arrangement which would be enforceable. OP has clearly acted upon that assurance by allowing the holiday (in his name) to be cancelled.

OP - you need to carefully document what happened and send it to them BEFORE they go. As Pinkshoes says, you also need to warn them of the consequence of not givign your dosh back.

pinkshoes

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

That agreement was for you to go on holiday. You then changed your mind and agreed that if someone else could go then fine otherwise you would go - no mention of cash.

They did this.

In all honesty I agree anything you get is a bonus. In law you will get nowhere and its all far too ambigous.

If you can get something in writing that the new person will pay you all or some of the cost on return I would go for it as thats actually enforceable.

I don't think it is too ambiguous... (allowing for common sense!)

Had the op stated they did NOT want to go whatsoever, then getting any money back at all would be a bonus.

In this case, that wasn't an option.

It was either a case of the OP taking the holiday, or someone else replacing them i.e. both in person and financially.

Think of school trips when someone has to drop out. The pupil that has dropped out gets their money back WHEN they've been replaced by someone else, minus any charge to change a name over on flights etc...

If this other person going wasn't willing to pay the full price, then this should have been raised BEFORE changing the name on the ticket.

HardSpend

Linas - you are right there is no evidence I asked for any money back if someone went in my place. Likewise there is no evidence that I said I was happy for someone else to go in my place without me being reimbursed. My friend's mum claims I said I was not going full stop so that is why they won't pay me back. This is a complete lie but I guess it is what they will say in court and my friend will back mum up.

After speaking to Sheriff Clerk office and CAB and taking advice from here I sent a letter today recorded delivery where I told my friend what the verbal agreement we made on 8th of June was (I stated it was "end of May" in opening post but I have checked my phone records since). This is basically what I said, I hope this cannot impede the case writing this here??
The verbal agreement on 8th June was either I go or someone else goes in my place and you pay me back my share. Cancellation was never an option due to the additional costs involved. This is what we agreed on good terms at the time.As someone else is going in my place then it is only fair and reasonable that they should pay back my share which is £547 less the £50 cost to change the name. I would like my money back before you go on holiday or a written assurance I will get it all back as soon as you return. If I do not hear back from you or your mum before you go on holiday I will take this matter to a small claims court next week. The bank account I used to transfer the £547 to your dad's account in April was sort code 00000 account 00000. I hope to hear from you.

poet123

I think a court will ask why there was no contact between 8th June and 21st july in view of the departure date.

I also think that the other side will state that the reason for that was that no agreement re reimbursement was in effect, that you had simply left it with her to find another friend, and failing that you would grudgingly go (not for a financial imperative but to be a companion so that your friend did not have to go alone).

I think that you will need to prove that you did indeed expect your money back in the event that a friend was found to take your place.