Tour operator demanding my money!

derossi

I see you asked the same question in todays daily star. Eddie hobbs gave you the same answer as most here. Pay up!!!

RustyNut

Contract = offer and acceptance both of which are here so ya owe the company I would think. I'd say the karma pixies are keeping a close eye on this one

amdublin

derossi wrote: »

I see you asked the same question in todays daily star. Eddie hobbs gave you the same answer as most here. Pay up!!!

I normally disagree with the Leprauchaun Accountant but on this matter I salute him!

allibastor

Lads,

technically the basis for a contract is that one party (buyer) agress to pruchase whatever from the (seller).

the seller must make notice of terms of business where an oral contract is used as the basis for the contract. the must keep notes themselves of the transactions and where the T+C's are concerned. for a succesful contract to be carried out the buyer must provide payment to the seller. the seller must honour his T+C's and pass ownership to the buyer.

in this case, from reading the OP, there were no set out binding T+C's in the initial contract, therefore it would be an invitation to contract. as nothing bar an initial enquirey was sent out both parties to the contract were under no obligation, as no capital was used to secure the contract. fair enough the OP booked the trip, and HE SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED!!! but as there would be no basis for a legally enforcing contract the company is out of pocket. it is a problem where a company takes bookings on good faith, a faith which was abused in this case. but the same is said for resteraunts where you book a table, if you dont show up can they sue you for the meal you would have ate?

if the company wanted to sue him they would have to show that as a result of his breaching the T+C's of thier contract, there was a loss, which would have to be shown by proving that someone else had been refused a place on the boat, and that this loss was a direct result of the OP actions. but because of a lack of T+C's this would not be enforcable.

but OP, do be more careful in future, companies like this operate on a good faith system to ensure bookings turn up. it is common courtsey to notify them of cancellations.

ResearchWill

allibastor wrote: »

Lads,

technically the basis for a contract is that one party (buyer) agress to pruchase whatever from the (seller).

the seller must make notice of terms of business where an oral contract is used as the basis for the contract. the must keep notes themselves of the transactions and where the T+C's are concerned. for a succesful contract to be carried out the buyer must provide payment to the seller. the seller must honour his T+C's and pass ownership to the buyer.

in this case, from reading the OP, there were no set out binding T+C's in the initial contract, therefore it would be an invitation to contract. as nothing bar an initial enquirey was sent out both parties to the contract were under no obligation, as no capital was used to secure the contract. fair enough the OP booked the trip, and HE SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED!!! but as there would be no basis for a legally enforcing contract the company is out of pocket. it is a problem where a company takes bookings on good faith, a faith which was abused in this case. but the same is said for resteraunts where you book a table, if you dont show up can they sue you for the meal you would have ate?

if the company wanted to sue him they would have to show that as a result of his breaching the T+C's of thier contract, there was a loss, which would have to be shown by proving that someone else had been refused a place on the boat, and that this loss was a direct result of the OP actions. but because of a lack of T+C's this would not be enforcable.

but OP, do be more careful in future, companies like this operate on a good faith system to ensure bookings turn up. it is common courtsey to notify them of cancellations.

I really hope you do not study contract law.

1 there was an agreement 7 people on tour to pay €50 each.
2 the terms of the contract are very clear the boat operator will provide a tour, the buyer will pay €50 so in simple contract terms Offer, Acceptance and consideration. The offer was the tour operator offering his service of tours, the acceptance was the person contacting the tour operator and agreeing to go on the tour on a set date and at a set time. Consideration was the agreement to pay €50 per person.

In relation to a policy on cancelations the operator has not stated what his is so then in contract law there is no cancelations policy simple.

In relation to consideration a number of people have the mistaken belief that it must be handed over to make a contract that is not the case, if it was then all you would have to do to get out of contract is to refuse to hand the money over. Consideration can be the handing over of cash or it can be the agreement to pay cash at a future time. In business credit sales are effected every day on the verbal promise to pay, while it is not the norm it is perfectly legal.

The money is owed, what I would do is ring operator explain difficulty and ask can ye go on the tour another day, it may make sence for him to agree to that.

allibastor

ResearchWill wrote: »

I really hope you do not study contract law..

I did do a bit of it actually.

your point of acceptance is vaild, but at the same time, the lack of T+C's does not mean the seller has automatic rights to just claim there is a no cancellation policy, this has to be pointed out. also it was stated that the seller would contact the buyer before the trip was undertaken, which never happened, this would have given hima chance to refuse the offer of the trip.

at the end of the day it was not a valid oral contract as both sides failed to up hold the full extent of the deal, the buyer by not turning up, and the seller for not making his T+C's clear and also for not contacting the buyer prior to his trip.

as i am sure you are aware a contact cannot also be conducted over an un-vaildated email also. i would argue that as the tour operator didnt contact the buyer, the acceptance portion of the contract was not fully carried out and condieration was not given.
credit sales are affected by the buyer agreeing to the selling companies terms and conditions, which, unless stated clearly are not enforcable.

P. Breathnach

allibastor wrote: »

... the lack of T+C's does not mean the seller has automatic rights to just claim there is a no cancellation policy ...

What lack of T&Cs? Terms and conditions can affect a contract, but if none are added in by the contracting parties, there can still be a valid contract.

And how does a "no cancellation" policy come into things, when the buyer did not even move to cancel?

... a contact cannot also be conducted over an un-vaildated email ...

That's news to me and, I presume, to many others. See this.

allibastor

Hi P.

the no cancellation part was just to highlight that the company needed to highlight what there cancellation policy is. i know he never made a move to cancel the policy, and i fell he is wrong for that, but the company should have in place a condition which outlines what the penalites are for cancelling or not turning up. AFAIK there is no blanc rule that says if you book it, you must turn up or face full payment.

and i have read that article also before, as i said an un-validated e-mail. the identity of the buyer needed to be confirmed by varification to ascertain if it was a genuine e-mail and had a genuine signature attached to it, as your article points out. i am assuming here that it was a generic e-mail sent to book the places and, again assuming, that the operator sent back a generic e-mail to confirm, but never followed this up.

again i should highglight i feel the OP was in the wrong here as he should have informed the boat operator of his none travel.

cookie1977

But what about the this:

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.

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


Surely the T&C's were not made clear to the OP and therefore this would then negate any responsibility in law to pay the fee?

allibastor

cookie,

that was my point at the start:). both parties here failed to honor certain parts of the contract, your man by not showing up, and the boat guy by not giving what would be express terms to the contact. every place has a different poilicy when dealing with cancellations or no-shows and this needed to be highlighted.

cookie1977

Yeah I agree with you allibastor. I was replying to P. It isn't good that people dont want to properly cancel, and thats clearly a personal issue on how they want to deal with it but in this case when speaking of the legal requirement I just dont think the company can do much other then in future to properly communicate their T&C's

P. Breathnach

allibastor wrote: »

the no cancellation part was just to highlight that the company needed to highlight what there cancellation policy is. i know he never made a move to cancel the policy, and i fell he is wrong for that, but the company should have in place a condition which outlines what the penalites are for cancelling or not turning up. AFAIK there is no blanc rule that says if you book it, you must turn up or face full payment.

I'd see it the other way: if you book it, you are liable to pay the agreed amount whether you turn up or not. The tour operator honoured his part of the deal.

and i have read that article also before, as i said an un-validated e-mail. the identity of the buyer needed to be confirmed by varification to ascertain if it was a genuine e-mail and had a genuine signature attached to it, as your article points out. i am assuming here that it was a generic e-mail sent to book the places and, again assuming, that the operator sent back a generic e-mail to confirm, but never followed this up...

I think you are cavilling on the point of electronic signature. A contract of this nature does not require any kind of signature, and its status is similar to an oral contract. Emails have evidential value: if OP tried to make a case on the basis that no contract existed, the emails could be examined for authenticity.

allibastor

thanks cookie!! i was also trying to agree with you, may not have sounded like it.

at the end of the day both the supplier and buyer need to highlight the consequences for non action of thier part of the contract, and as the boat operator didnt do this, well from what OP has said, IMO i would deam this as an intention to make a contract, without any legal basis. if the buyer had turned up on the boat mans door and the boat was not running i would say the same to him.

allibastor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd see it the other way: if you book it, you are liable to pay the agreed amount whether you turn up or not. The tour operator honoured his part of the deal..

that will be where i have said that i would find the contract a non legal one, as supplier failed to inform of basic contracutal facts, ie, the policy on not turning up or cancellation. i know the guy didnt turn up IMO i would pay, but i am just highlighting that i dont think it has a basis for a legal contract.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you are cavilling on the point of electronic signature. A contract of this nature does not require any kind of signature, and its status is similar to an oral contract. Emails have evidential value: if OP tried to make a case on the basis that no contract existed, the emails could be examined for authenticity.

yes i am speaking of that section. as with oral contract confirmation needs to be sought after intention has been made.
from your extract it says the same, and also that a generic standard signature to an e-mail is not sufficiant to form the legal foundation of the contract. i dont know what the lad said on the e-mail, i am only assuming that it was not in anyway formal. if it was a formal message with his intention clearly outlined and his full name and agreement given on the bottom of the e-mail i would say then yes he is liable, but again its an assumption that i made, as you have, to think that it was probably some random e-mail looking to go on a boat, with no follow up or confirmation.

i think that would be why the operator was supposed to get back to him three days before the trip, to confirm intention to complete the contract of going on the boat.

P. Breathnach

allibastor wrote: »

that will be where i have said that i would find the contract a non legal one, as supplier failed to inform of basic contracutal facts, ie, the policy on not turning up or cancellation...

Why should a contract need such elements? It can simply be taken that there is a contract for the supply of a service, and both parties are expected to honour the contract.

This week I contracted with a man to do a job for me. We neither of us felt it necessary to stipulate T&Cs that would bear in any way on our fundamental agreement: that he does the job, and that I pay him a certain amount of money. Things can be (and usually are) that simple. He has contacted me to say he has done the work; I will check that it is satisfactory; if it is, then I will pay him. Where is the condition that the work be done to a reasonable standard? It's not explicitly there, but you can be sure that the courts would take the line that it is an implied condition. And carefully measured, to boot: a reasonable standard in relation to the contract price.

My message is that any attempt to escape from a contract because T&Cs were not stipulated is likely to fail. The courts do sometimes show signs of good sense.

allibastor

Hi P.

you kind of answered your own question there. an express term of the contract differs from an implied term. in your case that he has done a good job is implied, but if there was somethignextra he was to do or some non-standard arrangement he was to do this would be express term.

listen, i am not looking to get into a big drawn out debat on how wording of contracts has lead to major problems. i am also not a contract lawyer and have no want to prove myself as such. the simple fact is that, according to the OP, no where were terms outlined about his jot turning up. also the seller was to make additional contact with the buyer before the trip took place, a point which could be argued as a contract fundamental, depending on who you ask.

at the end of the day, yes he should pay because it was more so his fault, but it would not be enforceable as the actions leading to the legal formation of a contract were not in place, they had big elements of being in place, but were not fully in place. this is again all based on assumption based on what the OP says.

P. Breathnach

allibastor wrote: »

... according to the OP, no where were terms outlined about his jot turning up.

So the default interpretation is that not turning up is in breach of contract.

also the seller was to make additional contact with the buyer before the trip took place, a point which could be argued as a contract fundamental, depending on who you ask.

It would take some chutzpah to try to persuade a court that such a failing went to the heart of the contract.

... it would not be enforceable as the actions leading to the legal formation of a contract were not in place...

I disagree.

RustyNut

Hi don't really know much about these things, but as I see it, op reserved a number of places on a tour and agreed how much to pay. Maybe there are no cancellations allowed. Caveat emptor. The places were provided and now there is a debt.

decskelligs

I would like to ask the OP if he had turned up for his trip and the boatman told him sorry but there was no space on the boat as he did not contact him between booking and departure what his response would be?

Would they be on here asking what the situation is regarding the boatman not holding spaces?

I worked for 10 years on a little passenger ferry to the Skellig Islands in Co. Kerry. We were only allowed carry 12 passengers eachday to the Skellig Islands as per O.P.W Regulations. So if i reserved 7 of the twelve spaces for the OP and he didnt turn up i would be forced to cancel the entire trip due to costs for fuel, skipper etc.

I cannot see why he didnt ring to cancel the reservation did none of the & people remember that they were booked to go then at least the boat owner could have resold the seats.

Jaysoose

decskelligs wrote: »

I would like to ask the OP if he had turned up for his trip and the boatman told him sorry but there was no space on the boat as he did not contact him between booking and departure what his response would be?

Would they be on here asking what the situation is regarding the boatman not holding spaces?

I worked for 10 years on a little passenger ferry to the Skellig Islands in Co. Kerry. We were only allowed carry 12 passengers eachday to the Skellig Islands as per O.P.W Regulations. So if i reserved 7 of the twelve spaces for the OP and he didnt turn up i would be forced to cancel the entire trip due to costs for fuel, skipper etc.

I cannot see why he didnt ring to cancel the reservation did none of the & people remember that they were booked to go then at least the boat owner could have resold the seats.

This is the crux of the matter really the OP has cost a business money by not contacting them, its funny how people "forget" to contact people when they no longer want the service.

They however never "forget" when they want to use the service, i think the op should simply pay up and in future show a little more common sense and basic manners when dealing with people providing a service they want to use.

cookie1977

The crux is the OP wanted to know if there was a legal issue here or not and some of us (my self included) dont believe there is any legal issue to answer from cancelling it for the reasons we've outlined. The moral rights here were not what was initially queried but it's great to know that so many people would have payed up on the basis of it being morally right. If only the banks and developers were as moral now

allibastor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It would take some chutzpah to try to persuade a court that such a failing went to the heart of the contract.

well it depends on what a leagl eagle would consider a fundemental condition of the contract. some would arge that the confimration of booking or follow up would be vital to ensuring that the booking was fully validated. again depends on who you ask, but i have had it happen before where i never made a follow up call to check my booking at found out it later went. actually went to a solicitor who said as i never followed up the booking it was left ambiguous(may not be spelled right) as to wheather or not i wished to proceed with the booking. it annoyed me then but it was partly my fault, same problem here i feel.

keithclancy

Thinking about this one.

I was in Birmingham and called a Taxi to go to the Airport.

After 20 minutes waiting I called the Cab Company and they said he was around the corner.

After another 20 minutes I just gave up, called another Cab company and he was there in 5 minutes.

Coincidently they turned up at the same time, the one I'd called 45 minutes earlier was looking for the pickup fee, actually started to get agressive saying that i'd called him, we had a contract.

He said he was going to call the Police, I said they'd tell him it was a Civil Matter.

I told him to get stuffed and got into the other cab to the Airport.

Now technically did I have an agreement with the first cab ? Should I have called to cancel before the second cab turned up ?

Shelflife

Keith i would say that you had a contract with the first taxi, but that when he failed to turn up within a reasonable time frame or the expected time he then breached the contract himself.

Just one point in regards to the OP, there are posters talking about the cancellation policy of the operator , but i feel that the whole crux of the problem is that the OP DIDNT cancel. he never gave the operator a chance to resell the seats.

Jaysoose

cookie1977 wrote: »

The crux is the OP wanted to know if there was a legal issue here or not and some of us (my self included) dont believe there is any legal issue to answer from cancelling it for the reasons we've outlined. The moral rights here were not what was initially queried but it's great to know that so many people would have payed up on the basis of it being morally right. If only the banks and developers were as moral now

Whats your point?