Tour operator demanding my money!

shanesheridan

I booked a tour 3 weeks ago via email for 7 people on a boat.
After a family illness my group decided to prospone the trip to another time but forgot to cancel the booking.
The tour operator has contacted me today and informed me he wants us to pay the full amount of the tour (50 euro per person!!).

However, while I am sorry for forgetting to inform the tour guide, I truly believe I should not be penalised.

1st. No where on the website/ correspondence in email do they state that cancellations or no shows have to pay anything.
2nd. No deposit or credit card was asked for at the time of booking. Their loss.
3rd. I was told I'd be informed via text message 36 hours before the tour departs with information regarding when and where to be there for. I never received any further confirmation or contact after the booking was made.


I'm assuming they have no case against me?

PinkFly

They held the places for you,pay up!

dudara

Morally, I think you have to pay them. The boat company kept 7 spaces free on the trip for your group, at a total price of E350. It was bad form not to cancel.

However, it's hard to say how much of a contract was formed by the email booking, without the existence of T&Cs.

amdublin

shanesheridan wrote: »

However, while I am sorry for forgetting to inform the tour guide, I truly believe I should not be penalised.

:

Holy god pay up

charlemont

If it were Charlie Haughey or Bertie Ahern, They would have paid up immediately, Being such honest people..You should have told the tour operator straight away ..

davo10

You booked it and did not cancel, the operator agreed to provide a service for you, they kept up their side of the bargain. See here for advice by consumer agency.

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Guides-to-Consumer-Law/Services/cancelling-a-service.html

Pay up.

shanesheridan

No where does it state that they impose a no show or cancellation fee in the information provided to me, or they're terms and conditions.

dudara

They upheld their part of the deal and you didn't. You cost a business time and money.

lab man

if twas the other way round what would you be saying :rolleyes:

shanesheridan

If it was my company I would have required a deposit at the time of booking and also have it in the terms and conditions that there is a cancellation fee/late cancellation fee.

Furthermore, I never recieved the confirmation 24 hours prior to the tour.

Does anyone know where I stand?

kbell

shanesheridan wrote: »

If it was my company I would have required a deposit at the time of booking and also have it in the terms and conditions that there is a cancellation fee/late cancellation fee.

Furthermore, I never recieved the confirmation 24 hours prior to the tour.

Does anyone know where I stand?

Yes.

You owe them €50 a head.

Bens

shanesheridan wrote: »

If it was my company I would have required a deposit at the time of booking and also have it in the terms and conditions that there is a cancellation fee/late cancellation fee.

Furthermore, I never recieved the confirmation 24 hours prior to the tour.

Does anyone know where I stand?

Yes, we know where you stand. You just want people who ease your conscience at doing a company, who acted fairly, out of money that you owe them.

davo10

shanesheridan wrote: »

I'm assuming they have no case against me?

Wrong. They have an email record of you confirming your booking and you have no record of cancelling it. You are 100% in the wrong here and if they are determined to get the fee from you, you will not have a leg to stand on. They and other potential customers who may have wanted to book a trip on what was probably a Saturday lost out because of your tardiness. If the position were reversed and you paid for the service and they did not provide it I suspect you would be down the small claims court in a shot.

Pay up, you f##ked up.

Donahg

Tell them to take a hike.

jor el

This is why a deposit would normally be taken, and forfeit. Since they didn't take a deposit, and you say their T&Cs do not say anything about paying in full for a no-show, then I would say you have nothing to pay. It's the business's fault for not putting a proper booking and deposit system in place, and having proper terms and conditions.

Normally a supplier/consumer contract is only formed at time of payment or deposit. Since no payment was made, and no deposit taken, it is very hard to see how any legal contract was formed. As such, they would have no case to bring against you, and you would be under no obligation to pay.

P. Breathnach

jor el wrote: »

... Normally a supplier/consumer contract is only formed at time of payment or deposit....

I disagree. I see no basis in the law of contract for that suggestion. Were it so, then no credit sale would be subject to contract law.

jor el

If buying on credit, then there are terms attached. There would also be payment details and signature required.

In this case, an email was sent to book a service. There were no terms supplied, and no payment details asked for.

If you go to a furniture store (for example) and order a kitchen table, but no deposit is taken and no terms are given, then you are under no obligation to pay in full. Even if a deposit is taken, once the item arrives you are still under no obligation to pay in full. You would simply forfeit the deposit if you decided not to buy.

In this case, the deposit was zero, and payment terms were none. There is no obligation to pay in full. This business needs to smarten up on their booking procedure.

P. Breathnach

An agreement was made by one party to supply a specified service, and by the other to pay a certain amount for it. That's the core of an enforceable contract.

I don't agree with some points you make: that a credit purchase requires a signature; that a contract for the purchase of goods can be voided at the time of delivery.

davo10

jor el wrote: »

This is why a deposit would normally be taken, and forfeit. Since they didn't take a deposit, and you say their T&Cs do not say anything about paying in full for a no-show, then I would say you have nothing to pay. It's the business's fault for not putting a proper booking and deposit system in place, and having proper terms and conditions.

Normally a supplier/consumer contract is only formed at time of payment or deposit. Since no payment was made, and no deposit taken, it is very hard to see how any legal contract was formed. As such, they would have no case to bring against you, and you would be under no obligation to pay.

This is incorrect. Read this.

http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Guides-to-Consumer-Law/Services/cancelling-a-service.html.

When purchasing an item, the vendor recieves payment and the consumer recieves the goods. There is the contract. When a service is purchased the server agrees to provide the service and the purchaser agrees to pay for it. In OP's case he confirmed he would via email, there is the contract. Terms and conditions may apply to short notice cancellation or refunds but jor el, the OP did not turn up, i.e he did not fulfill his side of the contract in any form. The operator in this case did, the boat was ready, the crew were there.

If the situation was reveresed and OP had paid in advance but the boat operator did not turn up, jor el would you be advising OP to go to the small claims court?, no doubt you would.

Considering the economy and weather at the moment I doubt boat operators are doing well, this company is out of pocket bacause the OP could not be arsed to cancel in time to give them an opportunity to resell the places.

OP post a link to the tour operator so we can see the website.

PCPhoto

plain and simple ...the OP owes a company money because he asked and they provided a service (in good faith)

if he does not pay there is a RISK the company will come after him legally (which could cost a lot more than the €350 if the company were successful in the courts)

if he does pay he looses out on €350.

OP .... who's fault was it that the company were not contacted ?
when was the decision made that you were not going to turn up ?

you could tell the other members of the group that since "Jimmy" didn't contact them to cancel you all have to pay - essentially putting the blame on "Jimmy" but sharing the cost between all 7 of you.

Shelflife

OPyou made an agreement with a tour operator, you screwed up by not cancelling on time, you are now trying to weasel out of the gentlemans agreement. it may not be legally enforceable but you are either a man of your word or you're not, trying to hide behind T&Cs is not the right thing todo.

if the tour operator left you in the lurch im sure you would be up in arms.

Man up !! ring him apologise and try to cut a deal, do the right thing.

subway

Service wasn't used, it's providers fault for not taking a deposit to account for no shows.
Nothing to pay unless you are a soft touch

davo10

Service wasn't used because OP did not turn up even though he confirmed booking by email he therefore had a written contract, operator provided the service as agreed. Wheather deposit was taken or not is not relevant, OP screwed the boat operator by blocking him from reselling the seats when he didnt inform he he wasn't showing up, so he will most likely have to pay up and to be honest I hope he is made to, he came on here looking for people to ease his conscience. Business is to tight these days for this type of ignorant BS.

cookie1977

davo10 wrote: »

Service wasn't used because OP did not turn up even though he confirmed booking by email he therefore had a written contract, operator provided the service as agreed. Wheather deposit was taken or not is not relevant, OP screwed the boat operator by blocking him from reselling the seats when he didnt inform he he wasn't showing up, so he will most likely have to pay up and to be honest I hope he is made to, he came on here looking for people to ease his conscience. Business is to tight these days for this type of ignorant BS.

While morally they should is it definite that they're liable? I dont believe so. There was no terms and conditions that the client agreed to from what we've been told.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/consumers_and_the_law_in_ireland.html

here it states that

What is a contract?

A contract is a formal agreement between two or more people that is enforceable by law. When you buy goods or services you enter into a contract with the seller. Contracts are made up of terms; some of which can be implied terms. Contracts may be written or oral. It is easier to know what the terms are in a written contract but an oral contract is also enforceable in law. Contracts may differ in many ways and there are no hard and fast rules governing what terms should be in a consumer contract. Terms in consumer contracts must always be fair and clear to the consumer.

Where the terms clear to the consumer in this case? I'm not sure based on what we've been told

subway

They aren't liable. Same as booking a hotel or restaurant.
Businesses normally take precautions for no shows.

drunkmonkey

What ever happened to Honor?

Call, Make a deal, keep your honor or karma will be hot on your heals.

subway

This is consumer issues, not spirituality.
But, if you want to look at morals,
If the op wasn't given specific terms, it's the tour operator who has now added an extra term into the contract and is therefore being dishonest imo.

Shelflife

subway wrote: »

This is consumer issues, not spirituality.
But, if you want to look at morals,
If the op wasn't given specific terms, it's the tour operator who has now added an extra term into the contract and is therefore being dishonest imo.

Thats fair enough Subway, but by the same token if the op turned up with his family and were told that the operator had sold the seats , im sure that the op wouldnt be happy and would be looking for compensation.

Its a two way street. !!!

subway

He might, but unless he had paid he wouldn't be entitled to anything. The tour operator may have provided a goodwill gesture in that case.
In the same regard, the OP paying the tour operator could be considered a goodwill gesture also. However as the tour operator would stand to lose more reputation they may be more likely to provide it. In this case I ink the worst case for the op is that he might not be able to use the company in future.

But, we are not dealing with that hypothetical scenario.

oldmantime

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I disagree. I see no basis in the law of contract for that suggestion. Were it so, then no credit sale would be subject to contract law.

I'd see the lack of consideration put forward as a problem. They merely had an agreement to agree which isn't typically enforceable. While it's arguable that the boat operator provided consideration, it's also arguable he didn't as the consideration would only really happen when the tour actually happened.

Credit is valid consideration and has been stated so before iirc.

I doubt the boat operator would win a case on purely contractual terms, i can't really think of any other terms he would win on either. OP should still probably pay as it's a bit of a dick move though.

P. Breathnach

oldmantime wrote: »

I'd see the lack of consideration put forward as a problem.

Can you give that some meaning, please?

They merely had an agreement to agree which isn't typically enforceable.

An agreement to provide a service in exchange for an agreed amount of payment can not be re-defined as an agreement to agree.

While it's arguable that the boat operator provided consideration, it's also arguable he didn't as the consideration would only really happen when the tour actually happened.

Tosh. He was there with the boat at the appointed time.

Credit is valid consideration and has been stated so before iirc.

Why are you saying this?

I doubt the boat operator would win a case on purely contractual terms, i can't really think of any other terms he would win on either.

There was a contract; one party met his obligations as far as was possible; the other party entirely failed to address his obligations. I'd say it would be an easy case to win in court.

OP should still probably pay as it's a bit of a dick move though.

At least we agree on something.