Xmas Day Lunch cancellation. Refund rights?

Okell

TELLIT01 said:

To be blunt, the reason for cancellation is irrelevant to the restaurant.  They have food already purchased and a table they have virtually no hope of 'selling' again.

The reason for cancellation is always irrelevant.

The only relevant factor is the extent of the hotel's loss - whether in terms of cost or terms of profit.  Unless the hotel can demonstrate that their loss is equal to the full price (which I doubt they would be able to, but who knows) then they aren't entitled to retain the full price.

FWIW I agree with you that they would have had no hope at all of "re-selling" that table, but that's just as irrelevant as the reason for the cancellation.  [Edit:  it's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't affect the legal principle that the hotel is only entitled to retain its loss rather than the full price.  But it might be relevant as regards assessing the amount of loss]

Undervalued

Okell said:

TELLIT01 said:

To be blunt, the reason for cancellation is irrelevant to the restaurant.  They have food already purchased and a table they have virtually no hope of 'selling' again.

The reason for cancellation is always irrelevant.

The only relevant factor is the extent of the hotel's loss - whether in terms of cost or terms of profit.  Unless the hotel can demonstrate that their loss is equal to the full price (which I doubt they would be able to, but who knows) then they aren't entitled to retain the full price.

FWIW I agree with you that they would have had no hope at all of "re-selling" that table, but that's just as irrelevant as the reason for the cancellation.  [Edit:  it's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't affect the legal principle that the hotel is only entitled to retain its loss rather than the full price.  But it might be relevant as regards assessing the amount of loss]

Indeed but in this situation their loss must be pretty close to the ticket price as it is unlikely that much of the food could be saved and used on another day. In fact the loss might be more than the pre booked ticket price, unless it was totally all inclusive, as the majority of customers would probably have bought pre lunch drinks etc.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Undervalued said:

Okell said:

TELLIT01 said:

To be blunt, the reason for cancellation is irrelevant to the restaurant.  They have food already purchased and a table they have virtually no hope of 'selling' again.

The reason for cancellation is always irrelevant.

The only relevant factor is the extent of the hotel's loss - whether in terms of cost or terms of profit.  Unless the hotel can demonstrate that their loss is equal to the full price (which I doubt they would be able to, but who knows) then they aren't entitled to retain the full price.

FWIW I agree with you that they would have had no hope at all of "re-selling" that table, but that's just as irrelevant as the reason for the cancellation.  [Edit:  it's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't affect the legal principle that the hotel is only entitled to retain its loss rather than the full price.  But it might be relevant as regards assessing the amount of loss]

Indeed but in this situation their loss must be pretty close to the ticket price as it is unlikely that much of the food could be saved and used on another day. In fact the loss might be more than the pre booked ticket price, unless it was totally all inclusive, as the majority of customers would probably have bought pre lunch drinks etc.

It's not their loss, it's either their costs or their loss of profit.

I think they'd find it very hard to claim hypothetical loses that can't be quantified, I believe it would be considered too remote but @Okell might have an opinion   

photome

Is there a reason why the 4 that were not hospitalised didnt go for the meal

Undervalued

photome said:

Is there a reason why the 4 that were not hospitalised didnt go for the meal

Well there must be! However it is irrelevant, apart from possibly encouraging the hotel to make a gesture of goodwill if they are so inclined.

Emmia

Okell said:

Emmia said:

I don't think the OP should get a refund at all. All but one of the party could have dined on Christmas Day but chose not to, for whatever reason...

That was my initial reaction too - I thought it was unreasonable for everybody to cancel just because MiL was ill.  But the more I thought about it I decided that it was my view that was unreasonable as I didn't know enough about the family circumstances behind the meal to decide whether the MiL's illness was sufficient reason for everybody to call off or not.  So I'm willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

You might be willing to give the OP the benefit of the doubt, but you don't run the restaurant in question and so this generosity has no cost to you... unlike the restaurant.

As the restaurant will have incurred costs, the most the OP could really hope for might be a goodwill gesture refund (or perhaps a discount on a future booking) - which I imagine will be substantially less than the £135 a head they'd like back.

Of course the OP does still have the option to never dine there again in protest.

Grumpy_chap

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Hello OP

In terms of consumer rights this falls under terms which may be unfair from the CRA regarding 

A term which has the object or effect of requiring a consumer who fails to fulfil his obligations under the contract to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

Where the term is classed as unfair the ordinary position applies meaning the hotel can retain either net costs or loss of profit but not both so you could ask them which they are seeking retain from the payment. 

Sorry to hear about the OP's MiL being unwell and wish her a full and speedy recovery.

In this situation, I am not sure that the full base-line fee still being payable is unfair or even unreasonable in the circumstances.
It is quite possible that the "net cost" of the meal on Christmas Day is equal to the amount charged per head (£135).  Hospitality is often all about numbers and "bums-on-seats" occupancy rate so headline rates for a Christmas Day dinner can often be set to fill the restaurant with the expectation that upsell (drinks) will deliver the establishment profit.  On that basis, the venue has now covered their cost but not had the opportunity for upsell so makes no profit on those table spaces.

k12479

ThumbRemote said:

Alderbank said:

I'm sorry to hear about your mother-in-law. Covid is unpleasant, I hope she is recovering well. If I had been your m-i-l I would have said to the family, 'Please, please don't let me spoil your enjoyment of Christmas Day. We'll all be together next Christmas. Here's £40 for another bottle of bubbly to toast absent friends.'

While the advice on this thread is generally good, this - and other similar comments saying the others could still have dined - are a bit silly. 

The OP states the mother-in-law was hospitalised. It's quite likely that eating was the last thing on their mind given their mother/grandmother had been taken into hospital 24 hours before. Certainly an enjoyable family meal out, with an empty chair where she should have been sitting, is not what most people would want in that situation.

Unless, of course, they are total sociopaths. 

Given a refund or a re-booking were not forthcoming, the options are eat or don't eat, either way the money is gone. Those that would chose the don't eat option are irrational and over-emotional. Which is a bit nasty, but then so is calling people total sociopaths and a bit silly.

km1500

basic contract law applies

if contract is broken the aggrieved party is entitled to claim their financial loss

however the restaurant has to mitigate their loss - for example if they are able to sell on their slices of Turkey, cold roast potatoes and sprouts the following day for example then this can be deducted from their financial loss

tedted

they cancelled on xmas day the tables and food would be in stages of preperation and staff costs for that day would be at least double if not more so why would the pub or hotel have to lose out