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

nej

Catering - £3000
Wedding Insurance - £30
Forgetting to buy said wedding insurance and losing £3000? - Priceless!

Melanie owes no favours here. She did what she was paid to do, and catered a wedding on the set date.

If I were Melanie, though, I'd discount the repeat performance.

Hurby

The situation is a textbook example of frustrating event, i.e. nobody is to blame for the flooding, nobody breached the contract and nobody is to blame for the non-performance, but unfortunately there are losses incurred and there must be a fair distribution of the losses between the parties. The contract ceases to exist, it gets automatically discharged.

As you can see from the postings above, there are so many opinions about how the situation is to be solved and ideally the insurance comes to the rescue. Not everybody is wise enough to insure against all possible risks though, furthermore insurers are very clever how to get out of common risks.

A good option is a force majeure clause in the catering contract through which the parties decide how to distribute the risk between themselves in case of an unforeseen event. It is in the interest of both the caterer and the marrying couple: whoever takes a bigger potential risk usually gets a bargain price of the deal.

But what happens if there is no such clause? There is an established legal way how to distribute the losses between the parties. This is the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943 and precisely Section 1(2). Translated in clear English it says that all sums paid before the frustrating event (the flooding) are to be returned and monies originally owed cease to be payable. However, there is the important practical situation of incurred expenses by one or both parties in getting ready to perform, in our case the caterer having set up the venue. It would not be fair on her to have to return the deposit regardless of her practical losses. Neither would it be fair not to be able to claim if she had financed everything herself, without a deposit, in expectance of a final settlement. The second part of S.1(2) makes provision for this situation: the party who has incurred expenses in connection with the performance of the contract can retain (from sums paid) or recover (from sums payable) their expenses up to the amount of the contactually agreed paid or payable sums. Whether and how much is to be assessed by the court (or they may settle out of court using common sense - much recommendable option!). This may seem a bit confusing at first sight, but if you think it over, it is very fair. Both parties entered into a venture together, the venture went terribly wrong, each party takes a fair share of the losses incurred. And they will know for another time: to insure themselves wisely and to agree a force majeure clause.

royster35

I doubt that if Melanie had taken out insurance the insurers would pay. After all, she has suffered no loss and is not in a position where she would need redress or compensation. The only loss incurred has been by the "happy couple" and they would not have been covered by any insurance taken out by Melanie.

If they are adult enough to marry, they should be adult enough to know that they are responsible for their own paths through life and to take sufficient steps to cover themselves against possible problems and not expect other people to have to put themselves out to rescue them.

What do they think would have been the situation if Melanie had been booked up solidly for the foreseeable future? Would they have expected her to let someone else down just so that they would be feather-bedded through another reception? What if a rearranged date was also a washout? Would they expect her to carry them through again?

Let's hope that this pair don't have any children until they are mature enough to teach them responsibility for their own actions.

Number-Cruncher_3

No, they have to stand the cost of the catering all over again. They paid for the service and the caterer delivered her end of the bargain, only the weather got in the way. Maybe the caterer could offer a discount as a gesture of good-will; this is the best outcome as it will be good advertising and make everyone happy all-round.

The_Grim_Reaper

It's all been said - Melanie is not liable, but could score some very good PR here.

isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

pay for insurance or take a gamble and save the money - the choice is yours. The chance of something going wrong again is slim, but...

after all, it's only money. Worse things happen at sea

:beer: so what did happen to the food and drink? LOL

me_me20

Couple should have bought wedding insurance (about £40!!!) and it would have paid for the entire wedding to be rescheduled! & no one loses out!!!

julia88

Shouldn't they have taken out insurance in case of such disasters?

kamoha

No way it's unfair on the caterer, People always want to shift blame these days, they should pay up and take insurance next time!

street600

I would actually say yes, that the caterer should do the food again for free. Is she was to stick to her guns and demand they repay, the couple will either repay but be bitter about it and speak badly of the company to friends and family (not good for the caterer - I am sure most of her buisness comes from referals) or the couple will get the hump and go and search out another caterer anyway.

If the caterer cuts her losses and keeps on good terms and does the food again for free as a goodwill gesture and had a good attitude about it the the couple will rave about how nice it was of the caterer etc. Loads of repeat business for her.

The couple do gain by getting their food for free the second time but come on have some symathy their WEDDING DAY was ruined! if many of the other costs have to be repaid flowers, photographer, venue etc it will make the caterer look even better for being a great understanding and friendly company.

In buisness a small loss can be a big gain later on.

katecheshire

Caterer should not have to sustain a loss. We use a caterer at work and if something is cancelled by clients at very short notice we still charge our clients and pay the caterer. Sometimes we get to eat the food :j

Couples seem happy to pay out stupid amounts of money for weddings but not for insurance.Iin this case perhaps the venue should accept some liability as well.

Personally I would have just sent someone to find another venue, however humble and gone ahead with the wedding.