Cancelled Christmas meal booking cover?

chattychappy

BarryBlue wrote: »

You tell me. Apathy, ignorance, poor advice from people on internet forums, who knows. The fact is that the law exists but people seem not to be aware of it. Perhaps ask Martin Lewis.:money:

Or perhaps it is you that has misunderstood how the legislation is applied in situations like this.

BarryBlue wrote: »

I helped a relative a couple of years ago who cancelled their wedding over a year before its scheduled date. The photographer, cakemaker and DJ all refused to refund deposits totalling £500. The venue offered half of the £2000 deposit back IF they re-let the place for the day, or nothing otherwise.

A few e-mails to these people pointing out the detail of the law soon paid dividends. They tried to dig their heels in but in each case I quoted the law, and gave them a deadline after which we would sue them. I recommended each of them to consult their company legal advisors rather than rely on their contract penalty terms. The lawyers soon told them they were wrong.

The result was that every penny of that total of £2500 was recovered without the need to take court action. Even the stroppy photographer eventually gave in and coughed up his £250 the day before the deadline expired.

Well done - I would have done the same. But it is hardly case law, is it - a case that didn't even make it to court? I've often advised clients to settle a case because of the management time/reputational damage/risk involved. Doesn't mean they didn't have a good legal case. This is particularly the case in small claims where there is limited chance to recover costs if you win.

As I said earlier, I've been to court to defend a deposit taken by a client and had no problem defending it. A real judge, albeit small claim. When the barrister (yep she had a barrister in small claim) tried arguing that my client couldn't have suffered losses amounting to the deposit, the judge simply stated he couldn't go down that route - the deposit seemed reasonable, was agreed, and it was credible that we could suffer those costs in the event of cancellations.

You are correct to say that T+Cs cannot override the law, but that's not what's happening here. Courts like "liquidated damages" clauses - ie clauses that are an agreement in advance as to the cost of a breach of contract. If you want to argue that a retained deposit amounts to a penalty - ie it exceeds the cost of breach to the injured party, you will have to overcome the agreement the parties have made in advance that the deposit does represent a fair assessment of costs. (Any sensible deposit clause would be worded this way - and we haven't seen the T+Cs.) Now if there was a crazy penalty in there - eg the entire cost of a meal, I'd fancy your chances arguing that the whole clause is unfair (as per the legislation).