Cooling off period? wedding dress mistake!

loopyloo1986

i paid a 50% deposit on a wedding dress yesterday of £900 and stupidly now decided it is not the one. i purchased it on a credit card in the boutique yesterday. the terms say deposit is non transferable or refundable. am i stuck and learnt a valuable lesson the hard way or do i have any rights under a cooling off period? thanks in advance.

PasturesNew

Is it off the shelf, or is it being made to your size?

whitewing

Have you found another dress from the same boutique which you prefer? If so, and you are quick, you may be able to persuade them to set the deposit against a different dress.

loopyloo1986

they took my measurements to order a size like 10 12 14 etc and then alterations would be made once in in an estimated 4-6 months.

nic_santorini

It is always worth going back into the boutique and explain your concerns. If you are going to order another dress from them i am sure they will be fine but they could stand their ground if you back out and the terms and conditions clearly state they can keep the deposit, although thats a huge deposit.

unholyangel

nic_santorini wrote: »

It is always worth going back into the boutique and explain your concerns. If you are going to order another dress from them i am sure they will be fine but they could stand their ground if you back out and the terms and conditions clearly state they can keep the deposit, although thats a huge deposit.

Thankfully T&C's dont override UK law.

4.1 Terms are always likely to be considered unfair if they exclude the
consumer's rights under contract law to the advantage of the supplier. A
basic right of this kind is to receive a refund of prepayments made under a
contract which does not go ahead, or which ends before any significant
benefit is enjoyed. In certain circumstances consumers are entitled to a
refund even where they themselves bring the contract to an end.

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.

4.6 Alternatively, the prepayment may be set low enough that it merely reflects
the ordinary expenses necessarily entailed for the supplier. A genuine
'deposit'– which is a reservation fee not an advance payment – can quite
legitimately be kept in full, as payment for the reservation. But of course
such a deposit will not normally be more than a small percentage of the
price, otherwise it is liable to be seen as a disguised penalty (see paragraph
5.8).

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
of disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group 18(c).

5.2 A requirement to pay unreasonable interest on outstanding payments, for
example at a rate excessively above the clearing banks' base rates, is likely
to be regarded as an unfair penalty. It makes the consumer pay more than
the cost of making up the deficit caused by the consumer's default. The
same applies to a requirement to pay excessive storage or similar charges
where the consumer fails to take delivery as agreed.

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.

5.6 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.

bris

They are entitled to loss of profit, Depending on the cost of the dress, £900 may very well be the profit.