Wedding caterers cancelled the day before wedding

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

Sorry, your joke implying the law society gazette gives a simplistic view of the law still has me chuckling.

So when shall I expect anything even remotely reliable backing up your own opinion? Or is it a case of not holding my breath?

So you can't highlight the bit?

Magazines like the law gazette are dangerous as layman like yourself with little knowledge of the law think reading it gives them the same knowledge as someone who is actually qualified.

bod1467

And your bona fides are ...... ?

Sicard

I don't think you'd get any compensation but as others have pointed out it's worth a try.

A court case? A lot of hassle, a lot of stress, and it's uncertain.

I would however tell all if they have social media pages and I'd also tell here their name which may show up on web searches if people want to do research on them. This site has a very good record for getting hits on relevant searches.

fleshandbone

You should name and shame them on social media, so they know that what they did was totally unacceptable and to teach them to not put any other poor !!!!!! through such a stressful situation ever again.

JReacher1

bod1467 wrote: »

And your bona fides are ...... ?

The problem with things like this Ian is that you can write anything on a forum e.g. I have a law degree at Oxford University. It can't be proved either way.

People linking magazine articles as examples of cast iron legal arguments are very dangerous. If all you needed was a copy of the gazzette then nobody would need to study law

bris

Loss of enjoyment is a valid claim yes but it is also very difficult to quantify. In this case tbh it wouldn't stand a chance in hell, how do you compare 2 caterers? The stand in's were cheaper so this would also be taken into account so let it go.


As much as it is an annoyance the bottom line is the night is what you make it, I doubt very much everyone was sitting about sulking because the sausage rolls were from Greggs rather than M&S.

bod1467

JReacher1 wrote: »

The problem with things like this Ian is that you can write anything on a forum e.g. I have a law degree at Oxford University. It can't be proved either way.

People linking magazine articles as examples of cast iron legal arguments are very dangerous. If all you needed was a copy of the gazzette then nobody would need to study law

At least devil woman IS linking to other places to support her arguments ... all you've done is criticise.

PS - am I supposed to feel threatened because you've used my name?

unholyangel

JReacher1 wrote: »

So you can't highlight the bit?

Magazines like the law gazette are dangerous as layman like yourself with little knowledge of the law think reading it gives them the same knowledge as someone who is actually qualified.

Did you try reading it?

How about this page from an actual solicitors:

Non-monetary loss: in cases concerning consumer contracts, contractual claims for damages for distress, anxiety, disappointment and inconvenience have been successful, where the object of the contract was the provision of a non-monetary benefit. For example, a holiday was not up to the promised standard, or wedding photographer failed to turn up.

Or this one: http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/7212/7892/5856/dp109_remedies.pdf

More recently, exceptions have been recognised in cases where, because of the nature of the
contract, the likelihood of distress was or ought to have been in the contemplation of the
defender at the time of the contract. For example, damages were awarded when a
photographer was in breach of a contract to take photographs at a wedding

Or this one: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm

Bingham LJ observed, at p 1445:

"(1) A contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party. This rule is not, I think, founded on the assumption that such reactions are not foreseeable, which they surely are or may be, but on considerations of policy.
(2) But the rule is not absolute. Where the very object
of a contract is to provide pleasure, relaxation, peace of mind or freedom from molestation, damages will be awarded if the fruit of the contract is not provided or if the contrary result is procured instead. If the law did not cater for this exceptional category of case it would be defective.

Where as you formed your opinion based on....your own fancy?

JReacher1

bod1467 wrote: »

At least devil woman IS linking to other places to support her arguments ... all you've done is criticise.

PS - am I supposed to feel threatened because you've used my name?

Sorry no, I was just trying to be friendly.

I apologise if you felt threatened. I won't do it again.

JReacher1

unholyangel wrote: »

Did you try reading it?

How about this page from an actual solicitors:


Or this one: http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/7212/7892/5856/dp109_remedies.pdf


Or this one: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011011/farley-1.htm


Where as you formed your opinion based on....your own fancy?

My apologies I didn't realise the OP was Scottish so the scots law link does appear to be good information.