London show cancelled 40 mins before start

Manxman_in_exile

But how does that have any effect the cancellation T&Cs being inherently imbalanced and unfair?

If you are saying that these are risks inherent in putting on a show, then those risks should lie with the people selling tickets for it, not with the people they are selling tickets to.

jon81uk

Manxman_in_exile said:

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So have I read that correctly?

The T&Cs say that if the consumer wants to cancel (refund or exchange tickets) then they have to give (at least?) 48 hours notice, but if the ticket seller wants to cancel then there is no minimum period of notice, and in fact they put the onus on the consumer to check beforehand that the event has not been cancelled or re-scheduled!

If I wanted to be argumentative I might say those T&Cs were a pretty good example of unfair terms insofar as they lead to an imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.  If the ticket seller wants the consumer to give 48 hours notice of cancellation, shouldn't the seller have to give the consumer 48 hours notice as well?

(Have I misunderstood what those terms are saying?)

I don't know whather 8.1 limits the seller's liability or not.  Again if I was being argumentative I might say it shouldn't as the seller shouldn't be able to exclude liability by relying indirectly on the unfair (ie imbalanced) contract terms regarding cancellation.  If the seller had had to give 48 hours notice of cancellation then the OP's party could have had an opportunity to make other arrangements (change travel plans, arrange to visit other attractions in London etc) and limit their own losses.  But as they weren't given reasonable notice of the cancellation they couldn't do so.  I think they've suffered at least partial direct losses on travel etc.

Of course I'm just being argumentative and thinking aloud.  I'm not saying the OP can necessarily get anything back other than ticket refund.

That doesn't seem unusual though, if you want to cancel tickets you need to give enough notice that they could feasibly re-sell them.
But if a theatre show is being cancelled by the producer its usually very last minute as its either sickness in the cast or an issue with the venue such as a power cut. Very rare for shows to be cancelled with notice.

It may be usual but that doesn't mean it's right.  Maybe they are all wrong.

[Edit:  But if it's reasonable to give the ticket seller sufficient notice to re-sell the tickets, why isn't it equally reasonable to give the buyer the same amount of notice to make other arrangements try to minimise their losses?  Why does it go one way?  I'd hazard a guess that the ticket seller will find it easier to re-sell the tickets at very short notice than the buyer will find it to change their arrangements even if they had the luxury of 48 hours notice]

As I said most cancellations are due to sickness or venue issues that would not normally be known about that far in advance. Generally either a showing is withdrawn due to poor sales weeks in advance or it’s cancelled with hours or minutes notice due to illness or venue breakdowns.
If you only know that both the lead and understudy are ill an hour before showtime how are you meant to give 48hrs notice?

sheramber

A show is not going to be cancelled on a whim as it means they lose money.

Manxman_in_exile

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So have I read that correctly?

The T&Cs say that if the consumer wants to cancel (refund or exchange tickets) then they have to give (at least?) 48 hours notice, but if the ticket seller wants to cancel then there is no minimum period of notice, and in fact they put the onus on the consumer to check beforehand that the event has not been cancelled or re-scheduled!

If I wanted to be argumentative I might say those T&Cs were a pretty good example of unfair terms insofar as they lead to an imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.  If the ticket seller wants the consumer to give 48 hours notice of cancellation, shouldn't the seller have to give the consumer 48 hours notice as well?

(Have I misunderstood what those terms are saying?)

I don't know whather 8.1 limits the seller's liability or not.  Again if I was being argumentative I might say it shouldn't as the seller shouldn't be able to exclude liability by relying indirectly on the unfair (ie imbalanced) contract terms regarding cancellation.  If the seller had had to give 48 hours notice of cancellation then the OP's party could have had an opportunity to make other arrangements (change travel plans, arrange to visit other attractions in London etc) and limit their own losses.  But as they weren't given reasonable notice of the cancellation they couldn't do so.  I think they've suffered at least partial direct losses on travel etc.

Of course I'm just being argumentative and thinking aloud.  I'm not saying the OP can necessarily get anything back other than ticket refund.

That doesn't seem unusual though, if you want to cancel tickets you need to give enough notice that they could feasibly re-sell them.
But if a theatre show is being cancelled by the producer its usually very last minute as its either sickness in the cast or an issue with the venue such as a power cut. Very rare for shows to be cancelled with notice.

It may be usual but that doesn't mean it's right.  Maybe they are all wrong.

[Edit:  But if it's reasonable to give the ticket seller sufficient notice to re-sell the tickets, why isn't it equally reasonable to give the buyer the same amount of notice to make other arrangements try to minimise their losses?  Why does it go one way?  I'd hazard a guess that the ticket seller will find it easier to re-sell the tickets at very short notice than the buyer will find it to change their arrangements even if they had the luxury of 48 hours notice]

As I said most cancellations are due to sickness or venue issues that would not normally be known about that far in advance. Generally either a showing is withdrawn due to poor sales weeks in advance or it’s cancelled with hours or minutes notice due to illness or venue breakdowns.
If you only know that both the lead and understudy are ill an hour before showtime how are you meant to give 48hrs notice?

If I were inclined to be argumentative I'd say that if theatrical cancellations at short notice are an inherent risk in the business of selling theatre tickets, then that is a risk that the seller accepts when they decide to go into that business.  The risk of cancellation isn't one that should be balanced unfairly against the buyer, as these T&Cs seem to do.

If you argue that the seller might need to cancel at short notice then you must equally accept that the T&Cs should give the ticket buyer the same right - otherwise it's an unfair term.

Manxman_in_exile

sheramber said:

A show is not going to be cancelled on a whim as it means they lose money.

Being Devil's Advocate, is it relevant whether the seller makes money or loses money from the cancellation?

Does it make the unbalanced cancellation terms fair?

sheramber

I haven't said it is fair or not.

I was merely pointing out that  a cancellation would not be done without good cause against the statements that the there should have been understudies available. 

I am sure the company would much rather that the show went ahead.

An unfair contract in the terms of sale is a separate issue and not going to affect whether a show is  unable to go ahead.

p00hsticks

Manxman_in_exile said:

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

jon81uk said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

So have I read that correctly?

The T&Cs say that if the consumer wants to cancel (refund or exchange tickets) then they have to give (at least?) 48 hours notice, but if the ticket seller wants to cancel then there is no minimum period of notice, and in fact they put the onus on the consumer to check beforehand that the event has not been cancelled or re-scheduled!

If I wanted to be argumentative I might say those T&Cs were a pretty good example of unfair terms insofar as they lead to an imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.  If the ticket seller wants the consumer to give 48 hours notice of cancellation, shouldn't the seller have to give the consumer 48 hours notice as well?

(Have I misunderstood what those terms are saying?)

I don't know whather 8.1 limits the seller's liability or not.  Again if I was being argumentative I might say it shouldn't as the seller shouldn't be able to exclude liability by relying indirectly on the unfair (ie imbalanced) contract terms regarding cancellation.  If the seller had had to give 48 hours notice of cancellation then the OP's party could have had an opportunity to make other arrangements (change travel plans, arrange to visit other attractions in London etc) and limit their own losses.  But as they weren't given reasonable notice of the cancellation they couldn't do so.  I think they've suffered at least partial direct losses on travel etc.

Of course I'm just being argumentative and thinking aloud.  I'm not saying the OP can necessarily get anything back other than ticket refund.

That doesn't seem unusual though, if you want to cancel tickets you need to give enough notice that they could feasibly re-sell them.
But if a theatre show is being cancelled by the producer its usually very last minute as its either sickness in the cast or an issue with the venue such as a power cut. Very rare for shows to be cancelled with notice.

It may be usual but that doesn't mean it's right.  Maybe they are all wrong.

[Edit:  But if it's reasonable to give the ticket seller sufficient notice to re-sell the tickets, why isn't it equally reasonable to give the buyer the same amount of notice to make other arrangements try to minimise their losses?  Why does it go one way?  I'd hazard a guess that the ticket seller will find it easier to re-sell the tickets at very short notice than the buyer will find it to change their arrangements even if they had the luxury of 48 hours notice]

As I said most cancellations are due to sickness or venue issues that would not normally be known about that far in advance. Generally either a showing is withdrawn due to poor sales weeks in advance or it’s cancelled with hours or minutes notice due to illness or venue breakdowns.
If you only know that both the lead and understudy are ill an hour before showtime how are you meant to give 48hrs notice?

If you argue that the seller might need to cancel at short notice then you must equally accept that the T&Cs should give the ticket buyer the same right - otherwise it's an unfair term.

In the OP's case that's not really relevant though, is it ? I think we're getting sidetracked a bit here.

The OP's not complaining that they no longer wanted to go and see the show thirty minutes before curtain up but the T&Cs didn't allow them to cancel their booking that late. They're looking to see if they can claim a consequential loss for train fares in addition to getting their ticket refunded when the theatre cancelled at short notice.

jon81uk

And if the theatre is liable for train tickets, what stops them being liable for plane tickets, hotel costs and other things?
It’s unfortunate but these things happen. If there is a hotel stay involved then travel
insurance might pay out depending on the terms. 
Realistically the OP might have been able to find another show to go and see in order not to have a wasted trip.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Manxman_in_exile said:

I'm pretty sure nobody else will agree with me but I don't see why all of you shouldn't be asking for both your travel costs and time off work!

If I wanted to be argumentative I might say those T&Cs were a pretty good example of unfair terms insofar as they lead to an imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract.  If the ticket seller wants the consumer to give 48 hours notice of cancellation, shouldn't the seller have to give the consumer 48 hours notice as well?

I agree the terms are unfair and my understanding is the unfair part would be void so in this instance I think the consumer would have the same cancellation period as the trader.

I agree the OP should have the train fares refunded if they made a 1 day/overnight visit. I'm not sure on the time off work as they could take more holiday for example (it doesn't sound fair but might be reasonable). 

jon81uk said:

And if the theatre is liable for train tickets, what stops them being liable for plane tickets, hotel costs and other things?
It’s unfortunate but these things happen. If there is a hotel stay involved then travel
insurance might pay out depending on the terms. 
Realistically the OP might have been able to find another show to go and see in order not to have a wasted trip.

It's an interesting point, if someone flew in just for a show then perhaps they should have their plane tickets refunded (although someone with money to fly in for a show might not care or have someone to complain about such things on their behalf). 

With leisure activities my understanding is there's also loss of enjoyment to be considered as well, if OP can rebook at a later date with their party one might argue their enjoyment was postponed rather than lost. 

If you planned a once in a lifetime trip centred around seeing your favourite show at the West End then you might not be able to claim the flight (as you'd be have a holiday out of the flight) but instead a claim for loss of enjoyment for missing the show. With loss of enjoyment it isn't limited to what was considered under the contract as payment so you could claim say £1000 despite the ticket costing only £100 (random figures, such claims are very hard to value).

Some suggested the OP should have travel insurance (perfectly sensible) but the event provider should also have insurance to cover any loses they face as a result of the show being cancelled. 

user1977

jon81uk said:

And if the theatre is liable for train tickets, what stops them being liable for plane tickets, hotel costs and other things?

Indeed. "I flew first class from Australia just for this show!".