Holiday dispute

HardSpend

Yes that is a problem and I don't think I can prove that. I had clear evidence at the time when I sent my bank details for the transfer of funds back but now it is just my word.

poet123

You see, if this were say a concert ticket or tickets for a dinner etc and someone was asked to go at the last moment, many people would do so if they were getting a deal on it, and not if they had to pay full price because it was not their choice, and they were in effect doing a friend a favour. I appreciate there is more money involved here, but the concept is the same, and I would think that is a defence that would be put forward. If it goes to court I would not expect full reimbursement, but a deduction for that angle, if indeed it was sucessful at all.

HardSpend

Yes I guess that may be the outcome which will be sad. It was not a last minute change of mind, I changed my mind or rather gave the opportunity for someone else to go on June 8th but the name change was only on July 20th. I hope the Sheriff will believe that I did not say it was ok for someone to take my place without paying me back.

Tozer

There is a principle in law called estoppel. You relied on the fact that other people would take your place and acted in reliance on that by stepping down from the holiday.

On this basis you have changed your position - i.e you have not taken the holiday which you were, otherwise, entitled to take.

I think you have a good claim. And ultimately, would they REALLY defend it?

poet123

That principle could be turned around though, Estoppel by silence could be cited by the other party, in that between the dates 8th June and 21st July no communication on the subject was received from the OP, and therefore the other party had to act or lose their own holiday, or go alone.

Tozer

poet123 wrote: »

That principle could be turned around though, Estoppel by silence could be cited by the other party, in that between the dates 8th June and 21st July no communication on the subject was received from the OP, and therefore the other party had to act or lose their own holiday, or go alone.

No I don't go along with that. There was an earlier conversation which the OP agreed to step down from the holiday on a premise that there would be someone else to take the trip.

poet123

Which he states he has no proof of.

HardSpend

It's true I have no proof of the conversation that I would still go if nobody else was found and that outright cancellation or going alone was never an option.

Perhaps it doesn't matter. I paid for the holiday, someone else is going on, they should pay and I should get my money back? Why would anyone think I agreed or didn't care about receiving any money back? I think it is reasonable to assume I expected to get my money back in full less the name change cost so that is why I am making a case.

My friend actually told me on July 21st that "someone else has been arranged for 2 months, a week after you said you didn't want to go, I only just changed the name because I only just got round to it".

poet123

I think you should pursue the case, however there are avenues that the other party could use to defend their actions.

They could say that you had a relationship which had irretrievably broken down and that you simply didn't want to go, and so had given them carte blanche to get another person to go. That in the intervening period you have now decided you want your money back, and as the departure date loomed decided to contact them to achieve this. Do you have anything in writing to prove the other person has been intending to go for 2 months? a text etc, if so, that would negate the estoppel of silence angle. If not, the other party could say they heard nothing from you amd had to act, or lose their own holiday, or go alone.

It is all a question of how the judge views the individual parties, and how convincing they are. Why would they not defend it? if they dont defend they lose, if they do defend they have a chance of winning, this applies equally to you in the reverse.

Debt_Free_Chick

HardSpend wrote: »

I think it is reasonable to expect them to pay for a holiday before they go on holiday.

It was paid for, but that is not my point.

If you pursue a claim, the Court is likely to decide (IMHO) that you demand that they pay within - effectively- 24 hours, before you commence Court proceedings, is unreasonable. As they will not have had an opportunity to pay - and you knew this - as they were due to leave on holiday.