Wedding Dress Shop Deposit

Dr._Shoe

My Ex is a photographer and his weddings rarely cancel but if they do he does have a loss. He has to decline any other offer of work for that date. He was in this situation a few years ago where he'd taken a job from couple A and was then contacted by couple B to do a job on the same day. Couple A then broke off the engagement and cancelled the wedding so Ex had to return the deposit. Luckily, couple B had not found a photographer at that point and he was able to do the job for them.

Wedding dresses are different though. It is unlikely that any dress ordered will suit anyone else and, though they are set styles, they are custom made to the customers' dimensions. Most bridal shops pay the supplier the whole of the deposit (50% in most cases) so if the bride does cancel the shop makes nothing at all, they make their money when the dress is collected and paid for in full. They also make money from the sundries such as tiaras etc.

I think it's very unreasonable for someone who has put a shop like this to so much trouble to even contemplate getting their deposit back whether they have the law on their side or not.

Pollycat

BarryBlue wrote: »

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.

I know sympathy has nothing to do with the law but some of the things the OP has said about the shop have grated on me (and with other posters) so I have none for him:

stoobloo wrote: »

Ultimately this has left a feeling of being unable to choose another dress shop, and continuing to have any involvment with this company will be awkward and uncomfortable.

stoobloo wrote: »

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.

I think maybe the OP would have had more sympathetic replies if he'd simply stated "my fianc!e stupidly chose a wedding dress, paid a deposit, signed a Sales Order and now has changed her mind. What are my rights to getting my deposit back" rather than trying to paint the shop in a poor light.

'manipulated and trapped'? Really?

meritaten

BarryBlue wrote: »

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.

do you KNOW how much a wedding dress costs? because they can cost £1000+. no small dress shop can take that sort of loss! even with a £500 deposit. (most dress shops ask for about 10% or 25%)


nobody mentioned a penalty charge for cancellation - where did you get that from?

peachyprice

BarryBlue wrote: »

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.

I don't think you appreciate just how the wedding dress industry works.

99% of wedding dress shops are private individual businesses, they don't have lines of credit with the dress manufacturers, when they place an order for a dress they have to pay a proportion of it at that time, otherwise the order isn't accepted.

If they placed the order when OP's fiance left the shop her deposit money would have been used to secure the dress, if the shop cancels the order, they lose the payment they have made.

BarryBlue

meritaten wrote: »

do you KNOW how much a wedding dress costs? because they can cost £1000+. no small dress shop can take that sort of loss! even with a £500 deposit. (most dress shops ask for about 10% or 25%)


nobody mentioned a penalty charge for cancellation - where did you get that from?

peachyprice wrote: »

I don't think you appreciate just how the wedding dress industry works.

99% of wedding dress shops are private individual businesses, they don't have lines of credit with the dress manufacturers, when they place an order for a dress they have to pay a proportion of it at that time, otherwise the order isn't accepted.

If they placed the order when OP's fiance left the shop her deposit money would have been used to secure the dress, if the shop cancels the order, they lose the payment they have made.

You are both missing the point completely here. How one particular industry works is irrelevant. What is important is how the law works.

I have stated quite clearly what the law is. I am not arguing about the merits of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. That is the job of the courts, who will decide a case on its merits. It just seems to me that you are criticising my posts because you don't like what the law says.

To clarify, if a person pays a deposit, therefore creating a contract, and then breaks that contract, then damages are payable. Those damages must reflect the actual loss incurred by the other party. That does not include any potentail loss of profit, just the quantifiable loss.

In cases such as the photographer scenario, he will have lost nothing. Turning away potential business is irrelevant in law. In the case involving the dress, there may well be a loss, and that would certainly be held as payable if they could show the court that loss. Nobody is saying that a contract can be cancelled without potential damages being payable.

The term "penalty charge" came up because that is what is defined and prohibited in law. If, say, there is a 50% deposit for a service where the loss in minimal, the retention of that is an arbitrary "penalty" rather than being the actual loss. I hope this clarifies the situation.

gettingtheresometime

I must admit I'm confused.

Has she ordered a dress or hasn't she?

Why on earth would she pay half of the cost of the dress if she didn't actually want it??

And if she did want it and was worried that she was paying over the odds, why did she sign a contract??

sheramber

Would the designer not also have to prove they had made a loss to enable them to retain the deposit?

Is it likely that the dress had already been started?

So, the shop can take the court for return of all or part of her deposit and so limiting her loss. The shop can then pass this on to the OP's fiance.

BarryBlue

sheramber wrote: »

Would the designer not also have to prove they had made a loss to enable them to retain the deposit?

Is it likely that the dress had already been started?

So, the shop can take the court for return of all or part of her deposit and so limiting her loss. The shop can then pass this on to the OP's fiance.

The shop would have to prove that they had incurred a loss in order to retain that amount from the deposit. If no work had been done then the loss is likely to be minimal. Any issue between the retailer and the designer/wholesaler is separate as it is not a consumer contract. The consumer has a contract only with the retailer. A court would make a judgement based on the facts of the case, taking all relevant factors into account.

flea72

sheramber wrote: »

Would the designer not also have to prove they had made a loss to enable them to retain the deposit?

Is it likely that the dress had already been started?

So, the shop can take the court for return of all or part of her deposit and so limiting her loss. The shop can then pass this on to the OP's fiance.

Unfortunately, bridal manufacturers tend not to be based in UK, so different laws apply, when they order the dress based on a bride-to-bes request. Most deposits for a dress in a shop actually cover the full cost of the dress from the manufacturer, as they want full payment on acceptance of order.

So once the shop orders the dress, thats the whole deposit allocated, Therefore the damages reflect the actual loss incurred by the shop. Hence why this is relevant for this particular industry