Seeking reimbursement for taxi not showing up!

Equaliser123

ILW wrote: »

Even if it was, I cannot see that it would include non performance penalties.

Yes, a contract was formed. The taxi firm agreed to pick the guy up. Performance of the contract wasn't completed.

And we are not talking about "non performance penalties" (which wouldn't be enforceable in English law anyway) but losses flowing as a consequence of the breach of contract.

ILW

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Yes, a contract was formed. The taxi firm agreed to pick the guy up. Performance of the contract wasn't completed.

And we are not talking about "non performance penalties" (which wouldn't be enforceable in English law anyway) but losses flowing as a consequence of the breach of contract.

Would that also apply if a bus did not arrive as per timetable?

System

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Yes, a contract was formed. The taxi firm agreed to pick the guy up. Performance of the contract wasn't completed.

And we are not talking about "non performance penalties" (which wouldn't be enforceable in English law anyway) but losses flowing as a consequence of the breach of contract.

Can the OP prove the address verbally given over the phone was the right one?

Despite all the talk of breach of contract nothing is going to happen here unless the taxi company decide to pay up. It's never going to court this.

Equaliser123

ILW wrote: »

Would that also apply if a bus did not arrive as per timetable?

Clearly not as you don't book a bus.

Equaliser123

goater78 wrote: »

Can the OP prove the address verbally given over the phone was the right one?

Wouldn't have to. Onus of proof would be on the taxi company.

System

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Wouldn't have to. Onus of proof would be on the taxi company.

No sorry that's wrong. It's down to the OP to prove the terms of the contract were breached not the taxi driver.

Equaliser123

goater78 wrote: »

No sorry that's wrong. It's down to the OP to prove the terms of the contract were breached not the taxi driver.

No. The Claimant would have to show that there was a contract and that there was a breach. The fact that there was a booking and that the taxi did not arrive would be sufficient.

If you read the original post, the OP has at least 5 witnesses. The taxi firm would have to prove that the OP was at fault. I expect, if there was an issue, that any District Judge is likely to believe that someone gave their address correctly...

System

Equaliser123 wrote: »

No. The Claimant would have to show that there was a contract and that there was a breach. The fact that there was a booking and that the taxi did not arrive would be sufficient.

If you read the original post, the OP has at least 5 witnesses. The taxi firm would have to prove that the OP was at fault. I expect, if there was an issue, that any District Judge is likely to believe that someone gave their address correctly...

No

The five witness's prove the taxi didn't arrive not that the taxi firm was given the correct address. Also I suspect these witnesses are not impartial.

Speaking over the phone is not always clear and it can be easily misheard. If the OP didn't ensure they had the correct address details then that is their own fault.

Also the OP should have contacted the contract provider before paying additional expenses to get their partner to their destination. The taxi company was offered no opportunity to drive the partner to the airport.

Anyway as I've said this wont go to court.

Equaliser123

Impartiality of witnesses doesn't preclude them from giving evidence.

It will absolutely not be for the OP to ensure they had the right address. You are bringing in issues which are not relevant at all.

Maybe OP should have contacted the company. That will go to mitigation of losses but not liability.

System

It is the OPs responsibility that all the terms proposed to the contract are understood by the other party.

If it doesn't matter that the witnesses are impartial I am sure the taxi firm can round up a few.....