Cancelled Wedding

thesmallcheese

Hello Everyone,

This isn't by far my first post to the MSE forums, I used to post a lot however, have had to re register as I don't want my real name shown on this post :-(

A family member has chosen to cancel her wedding, for a more than understandable reason.

Unfortunately this wedding is in 4 weeks time...

The venue for the reception are demanding that the FULL amount is due. I understand that the £1500 deposit is non refundable, and I understand that the venue needs to covers its losses, but I think that the full amount is unfair. For example, I am sure that staff are on flexible contracts, and wouldn't be paid for the day.

My view would be to ask for an itemised list to breakdown the total, offering to pay for all fixed costs, but not variable (for example non salaried staff costs). Does this sound reasonable?

On another note, the terms if the contract state that the venue reserves the right to request full payment if cancellation is advised less than 6 months in advance. However - the signed copy of the contract doesn't state what the full amount will be - only the deposit. Could this help?

I don't want to shaft the venue, after all there is a signed contract, and they are a decent local business, but do feel there could be grounds for compromise.

Any thoughts much appreciated!

TSC

deanos

im no legal eagle but surely they cant claim the full cost only the profit lost ?

Bella73

To be honest I would expect to pay the full amount unless the venue can sell it to someone else, and as it is peak wedding season the staff could well be full time at the moment so will need to be paid.

The contract probably doesn't state the full amount as prices rise. We booked our wedding venue 18 months in advance but were warned some prices might change by the actual date. Few did at the end of the day but we knew that.

Can they get the money off the other person involved?

Okydoky25

If full payment needs to be paid instead of wasting it totally turn it I to a 'Lucky Escape' Party?

duchy

If it was the other way around and the venue had cancelled at this short notice "for an understandable reason lime "we just don't want to go ahead"" would you have expected them to just refund the deposit ?

Why do you think contracts exist ?

There is no reason why a business and their employees should be disadvantaged because a customer has changed their mind (anything other than disinclination would be covered by wedding insurance).

Your dismissal of the loss of wages to any employees is truly charming btw.Turning it around again - Had the wedding gone ahead and there were no serving staff as they had opted not to bother showing up for the day because they were casuals rather than contracted as they were disinclined to you'd not be happy.

Contracts exist to protect everyone involved.
Yes it is awful when wedding plans fall through - but most reasons are covered by insurance .....and if it is disinclination - it's a lot cheaper than finding out later and going through a costly divorce.

The odds of the venue been able to resell the date at such short notice are low (obviously if they can it's a different matter) but ultimately it isn't their fault the couple have chosen to cancel.

Ultimately the person who chose to cancel the wedding should be responsible morally - but if both of the couple signed the contract then they will be jointly liable.

philip1988

deanos wrote: »

im no legal eagle but surely they cant claim the full cost only the profit lost ?

I am also not a legal eagle, however I do believe that they need to mitigate their losses, ie if they can resell at short notice even at a reduced price.

Also I believe that they can't charge you for costs that they wouldn't incurr if the wedding is cancelled, i.e food, drink and part-time casual staff. If you think about it, if you paid the full amount they would in fact be making an increased profit becuase they wouldn't have paid for the above. They would still make a profit on the event so wouldn't loose out but you would be paying less

You also don't have to pay the 20% VAT

unholyangel

5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A
requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable
pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive
penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the
extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law. Other types

5.3 Other kinds of penal provisions which may be unfair are damages and costs
clauses saying that the supplier can:
• claim all his costs and expenses, not just his net costs
• claim both his costs and his loss of profit where this would lead to
being compensated twice over for the same loss
• claim his legal costs on an 'indemnity' basis that is, all costs, not just
costs reasonably incurred. The words 'indemnity' and 'indemnify' are
also objectionable as legal jargon – see below, Part IV, Group 19(b).

5.4 Potentially excessive penalties. A penalty that states a fixed or minimum
sum, to be paid in all cases, will be open to challenge if the sum could be
too high in some cases.

5.5 Assessment of unfairness focuses on the effect terms could have, not just
the purposes they are intended to serve. Thus a clause may be unfair if it
allows the supplier excessive discretion to decide the level19 of a penalty, or
if it could have that effect through being vague, or unclear, or misleading
about what consumers will be required to pay in the event of default.
Consumers rarely know about technical issues such as 'mitigation' of loss,
and so can easily be misled into thinking that the supplier can claim more
than is really the case.

5.6 Cancellation penalties and charges. A term which says, or is calculated to
suggest, that inflated sums could be claimed if the consumer cancels the
contract is likely to be challenged as unfair. For example, a penalty for
wrongful cancellation that requires payment of the whole contract price, or
a large part of it,20 is likely to be unfair if in some cases the supplier could
reasonably reduce ('mitigate') his loss. If, for example, he could find
another customer, the law would allow him to claim no more than the likely
costs of doing so, together with any difference between the original price
and the re-sale price.

5.7 There is unlikely to be any objection to terms which fairly reflect, in plain
language, the ordinary legal position – that is:
• requiring the consumer to pay a stated sum which represents a real and
fair pre-estimate of the costs or loss of profit the supplier is likely to
suffer, or
• stating simply that the consumer can be expected to pay reasonable
compensation, or compensation according to law.
Note, however, that a term which purports to reflect the law on damages is
open to challenge if it is potentially misleading.

4.3 Where customers cancel without any such justification, and the supplier
suffers loss as a result, they cannot expect a full refund of all
prepayments17. But a term under which they always lose everything they
have paid in advance, regardless of the amount of any costs and losses caused by the cancellation, is at clear risk of being considered an unfair
penalty – see Group 5.

4.5 A way to improve the fairness of such a term is to ensure that it does not
go beyond the ordinary legal position. Where cancellation is the fault of the
consumer, the business is entitled to hold back from any refund of
prepayments what is likely to be reasonably needed to cover his net costs
or the net loss of profit resulting directly from the default.18 There is no
entitlement to any sum that could reasonably be saved by, for example,
finding another customer.

Whoever entered into the contract with them is liable for the venues reasonable costs incurred due to the breach of contract.

At 4 weeks notice - I really wouldnt hold out much hope of the venue being able to find another customer. Its not impossible but most people book theirs well in advance.

keyser666

philip1988 wrote: »

I am also not a legal eagle, however I do believe that they need to mitigate their losses, ie if they can resell at short notice even at a reduced price.

Also I believe that they can't charge you for costs that they wouldn't incurr if the wedding is cancelled, i.e food, drink and part-time casual staff. If you think about it, if you paid the full amount they would in fact be making an increased profit becuase they wouldn't have paid for the above. They would still make a profit on the event so wouldn't loose out but you would be paying less

You also don't have to pay the 20% VAT

I think they will easily be able to mitigate their losses with 4 weeks to go, chances of filling that spot in a small timescale are going to be really difficult.

unholyangel wrote: »

Whoever entered into the contract with them is liable for the venues reasonable costs incurred due to the breach of contract.

At 4 weeks notice - I really wouldnt hold out much hope of the venue being able to find another customer. Its not impossible but most people book theirs well in advance.

I totally agree here and I would expect them to claim the full payment.

@ OP - It is immaterial if they bring in people on zero hour contracts, that is of no concern for you. I assume your family has wedding insurance right?

PasturesNew

And don't forget - if they do end up paying it, might as well have a big party instead ad go.

unholyangel

keyser666 wrote: »

I think they will easily be able to mitigate their losses with 4 weeks to go, chances of filling that spot in a small timescale are going to be really difficult.

I totally agree here and I would expect them to claim the full payment.

@ OP - It is immaterial if they bring in people on zero hour contracts, that is of no concern for you. I assume your family has wedding insurance right?

I wouldnt expect the full payment. If staff are on casual contracts then that an amount they could save - and by law they're not entitled to any sum they can reasonable save.

However, this late on.....I'd very likely be expecting to pay a large part of it.

thesmallcheese

Thank you for the replies and your thoughts.

The person concerned is well aware, as I am, that they will have to pay a large part of the amount due.

All I am trying to achieve, is to save them anything, even a small amount will help.

With regards to casual staff - there is no way that the venue will be paying them for not working, so this is partly where I think my family member has a case. The venue would otherwise be profiteering. Their employment contract is of no concern to us - zero hour contracts are now commonplace and almost standard. Whether the venue gets their full amount or not, I'd bet they won't be paid - so it's not our concern.

I will be speaking to the venue next week so will update how I get on - might help someone else in the future.