Wedding Dress Shop Deposit

BrassicWoman

the issue is not with the shop. it is with your fiancee.

74jax

stoobloo wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

My fianc! is very upset that she feels like she was manipulated and trapped in such a contract withthe shop. There is now no trust in the shop or the company owner as there was NO mention that this was a contract, just that a deposit would be required.

The shop are insisting they will find her the right dress (as the one a deposit was put down on is no longer desired due to style and cost).

But she paid a deposit, did she not think that was enough of a contract? The shop, to me, are being understanding in that they are allowing her to transfer the deposit to another dress just because from what you say, she no longer desires the dress and its to expensive.

Does the form state it's a deposit and xyz still to be paid on collection? How is it now a different price? Have they increased it?

Why is trust gone? They seem to be doing all they can to accommodate?

System

She was meant to read the contract before she signed it not after. Whilst she has given her deposit, yes the dress might be in stock but they cant sell it to anyone else. Its for her protection as well as the protection of the shop that is selling it.

Rambosmum

This is perfectly normal practice. You sayyou're going to buy something, pay a deposit, the shop order it and if you change your mind then you lose the deposit. If the shop couldn't source the dress because it was no longer being made or something that would be different. It seems that they are being very reasonable letting her transfer the deposit to a different dress.

BarryBlue

Rambosmum wrote: »

This is perfectly normal practice. You sayyou're going to buy something, pay a deposit, the shop order it and if you change your mind then you lose the deposit.

Not necessarily true at all. This is a fallacy that many people fall for.

It seems that virtually everyone who has commented has no comprehension of the "penalty charge" aspect of retaining a full deposit if the purchaser cancels the contract. A shop cannot simply decide to pocket it, they have to be able to show that the amount retained is a genuine reflection of their financial loss, and that does not include loss of profit.

I did highlight the relevant legislation at post #8. It would be worth the OP Googling it if they are determined to cancel, since the shop will have incurred little or no loss at this early stage.

Pollycat

BarryBlue wrote: »

Not necessarily true at all. This is a fallacy that many people fall for.

It seems that virtually everyone who has commented has no comprehension of the "penalty charge" aspect of retaining a full deposit if the purchaser cancels the contract.

I think the OP would have got advice better suited to his situation had he posted on the Consumer Rights board instead of the Marriage board.

On this board posters just think his fiancee is cheeky for paying a deposit on a wedding dress, changing her mind & wanting her money back..
The comments have nothing to do with the law.

Topcat1982

Actually the shop has been very reasonable here (letting her put the deposit towards another dress).

The whole point of a deposit is if you change your mind you lose it. Same with venue, photographer etc. Don't pay the deposit or sign anything until you are sure!

meritaten

what many people don't realise is that 'the dress' will be 'made to order' and the shop liable for the price of that dress. dress designers do not do 'sale or return'. the shop has to pay the cost of the dress once ordered. and the deposit doesn't cover that. this is why it often takes a couple of months or more before the dress is delivered to the shop. and why wedding dress shops want the full price paid before they will release the dress to the customer.
wedding dresses are not generally held 'in stock' by the manufacturers. they are made to order so its not a case of sending out stock. they generally wont accept 'returns' either. so the shop has to protect itself. hence the 'contract'. which despite earlier posts IS legal and binding. as a shop which orders a dress in good faith, can still find itself out of pocket if the purchaser goes elsewhere and forgoes the deposit.

BarryBlue

Pollycat wrote: »

I think the OP would have got advice better suited to his situation had he posted on the Consumer Rights board instead of the Marriage board.

On this board posters just think his fiancee is cheeky for paying a deposit on a wedding dress, changing her mind & wanting her money back..
The comments have nothing to do with the law.

I can't disagree with you. The morals of it may not be great but the law is quite clear. If the deposit is retained as a penalty rather than a true reflection of what the shop has lost then it cannot be retained. The contract term would be declared unfair by a court and therefore disregarded.

Topcat1982 wrote: »

The whole point of a deposit is if you change your mind you lose it. Same with venue, photographer etc. Don't pay the deposit or sign anything until you are sure!

Sorry, but that is absolute rubbish. If a wedding is cancelled, the venue, entertainment and photographer will all be required to refund most or all of the deposit.

Say you cancel a year in advance. The venue can re-let and will not have bought in food and drink at that point. So they cannot retain the money. What will a photographer lose? They don't even buy film these days.

I have personal experience of this situation after my daughter cancelled her wedding. The venue wanted to retain over £1000 until the law was explained to them. They consulted their lawyers and refunded within 48 hours. The cake maker moaned like hell but knew she had to pay up, as did the disco man. The photographer refused to refund £250 so we sued him and won, so it cost him more in the end.

It seems many people are under the same misapprehension as you on the subject and just write it off. So it is worth being aware of consumer law rather than barrack room law.

BarryBlue

meritaten wrote: »

what many people don't realise is that 'the dress' will be 'made to order' and the shop liable for the price of that dress. dress designers do not do 'sale or return'. the shop has to pay the cost of the dress once ordered. and the deposit doesn't cover that. this is why it often takes a couple of months or more before the dress is delivered to the shop. and why wedding dress shops want the full price paid before they will release the dress to the customer.
wedding dresses are not generally held 'in stock' by the manufacturers. they are made to order so its not a case of sending out stock. they generally wont accept 'returns' either. so the shop has to protect itself. hence the 'contract'. which despite earlier posts IS legal and binding. as a shop which orders a dress in good faith, can still find itself out of pocket if the purchaser goes elsewhere and forgoes the deposit.

The situation you describe is quite complex and a court would consider all the facts. The onus would be on the shop to show that they had suffered an actual financial loss, which would clearly be the case if the dress had been made. But if the order was cancelled quickly they would be unlikely to prove this. A late cancellation may well entail more than the deposit being awarded, as long as the business could prove the loss.

A contract IS legally binding but we are talking about what happens when one party cancels and is therefore in breach. The other party needs to be compensated for actual loss, which in many cases is little or nothing. If the charge for cancellation was in excess of that amount then the court would deem the contract term unfair and therefore unenforceable. You cannot apply an arbitrary amount to be forfeited as it is then a penalty charge which is unlawful.

As I said earlier, there is much ignorance about this legislation and many people just accept the loss. The law is clear, however.