MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should flood ridden Rhett and Scarlet get free catering?

Mike_C_5

Hi, I think this highlights 2 problems that an business and buyer should know about. Firstly there should be contract for all important transactions as I am sure there are many more other potential problems that could be avoided by both parties knowing what is offered and what is expected.
The contract would then identify at what stage the goods change from being owned by the supplier to being owned by the buyer. This way it would be clear who would pay for the replacement food as it would reasonably be the owner. What would the caterer say if they made the wedding cake and then dropped it before the wedding?
I have done wedding photography and the bride and groom expected me to have a working camera with me to take the photographs. What happens if someone knocked over the camera and it stopped working? This did happen to me and I always had a complete second backup system with me at every wedding.
Unfortunately my answer is that if you claim to be offering a professional service then you should have proper business insurance. On a small business this is not expensive and is part of your cost. You don't then have to answer this question as the insurance company pays and we are all happy.

CCCele

If it was the other way around, Melanie had been flooded and could not supply the food, then Rhett and Scarlett would be taking action against her. Melanie would need to be insured for that. But as it is, it is Rhett and Scarlett's fault for not having insurance.

At least the booze could be reused.

Jazz_uk

For me it is simple, the caterer was booked to provide a service and goods and was not caught in the floods therefore able to provide what was contracted.

It is not her fault that the service was not used as contracted... if your remove the flood from the situation and say that the bride got cold feet and it was cancelled at the last minute would anyone be saying that Melanie should have/use insurance?

In fact even if Melanie had insurance, then this would just cover her for damage to her own property and loss of income due to the damage... none of which happened.

Jazz

golddustmedia

I got married 2 weeks ago and made the sensible decision to buy wedding insurance. It was £49 and covered me for just such losses.

Likewise the caterer should have business insurance too.

However the caterer should not be liable since she has provided the food as per contract and it's actually the venue that is unable to supply the service.

Realistically it should be the venue who are liable for costs or if that was not a business (e.g. a hotel) then the couple themselves should have had the forethought to buy wedding insurance as I did.

My opinion: Caterer NOT liable.

On another note, I saw a lady on the news about the floods complaining that they would lose money as her flooded home was not insured and was expecting a government handout!?!?

Surely that just makes a mockery of those of us who DO buy home insurance? Otherwise why should we bother?

Astoundingly that ladies reason for not having house insurance is they couldn't buy it as they live on the flood plain!!! Well that should be a key indicator that perhaps you shouldn't live there? Would have come up on a survey and the solicitors searches.

lellie

Absolutely not.

The couple should have wedding insurance. If they don't - they should foot the bill.

potbelly

lplumb wrote: »

.......- but we must all take responsibility for ourselves and not expect other to look after us.
Leslie

To me, that is the key phrase. Nowadays too many people expect someone else to be responsible for things that are actually their own responsibility.
As a small business, I am insured against mishaps for which I am responsible but I would not expect that to cover the customers own problems.
In this case, if Melanie had not been able to provide the catering, her insurance would recover the costs but if she WAS able to provide the catering but the venue was unuseable, that was the couples problem, and THEY should claim on THEIR insurance. If they didn't have any, that is their fault, not Melanie's.

CrazyCat

Wedding insurance is very cheap compared to the overall cost of a wedding, and you can't pick up a bridal magazine without seeing adverts for it so ignorance is no excuse.

Equally no one running a small business should consider doing without their own insurance.

Both sides should really be insured and should make claims as appropriate, that way no one is out of pocket and the couple can happily book the caterer for when they re-schedule.

rdwarr

Frankly my dears, I couldn't give a damn!

GileZ

At the end of the day, it was not Melanie's fault that they didn't want the food on the day- she kept her part of the contract, stating that she would provide the food at the venue. If anything, the venue should reimburse from their insurance as they were not able to provide the service that was paid for. However, it would have been easier all round if they had paid for wedding insurance- thats what its there for!

Queen.Bess

I'm in agreement with what's been written already! Insurance should cover things like this and Melanie has fulfilled her contract by providing the food. It is wrong of Scarlet and Rhett to ask her to work for nothing.