Word of Warning - <SNIP>

Dan133269

Hello everyone, I would just like to share my experience with <SNIP> in the hope that I can give others some information which will help them in choosing which bouncy castle provider to use.

My little sister had her communion last Saturday. She had her heart set on a big day with a bouncy castle, and as such, the parents obliged. My mother contacted <SNIP> roughly 2 months before the required date. My mother explained that she was looking to get a bouncy castle for her daughter’s communion but that the shape and size of the front garden may be an issue for accommodating the bouncy castle. The woman from <SNIP>, <snip>, agreed to call out herself and physically inspect the property. She did so just a couple of days after the phonecall, examined the garden and told my mother that it was perfectly fine for accommodating the requested bouncy castle. At this point, my mother paid <snip> 50 euro as a deposit.

This was all well and fine. A few days before the communion day, my mother spoke to <SNIP> to confirm the time of the bouncy castle’s arrival. She was told that the castle would be delivered and set up at 8am on Saturday. So, come the big day and the whole family gets ready and heads to the church for 11am, with no sign of the bouncy castle. No problem we thought, as we didn’t need it until a little bit later. We assumed that they were just running late. My mother called to make sure.

After several attempts at getting through to <SNIP>, <snip> the owner, eventually answered the phone. He explained to my mother that the delivery man had called to the house while we were all the in church and had determined himself that the garden was unsuitable and therefore unsafe to install a bouncy castle. My mother informed <snip> that another employee of <SNIP> <snip>, had previously called to the house for the exact purpose of inspecting whether the garden was suitable, and she had determined that it was. He informed my mother that this was nothing to do with him, and <snip> was not there at that specific point in time. My mother then asked why the delivery man or someone else from <SNIP> didn’t let us know what was happening. He simply did not answer this question.

My mother informed <snip>, the owner, that she was naturally very unhappy with the situation and he simple stated that there was no way that they were going to install a bouncy castle after the delivery man’s judgement that the garden was unsuitable. My mother then pointed out to him that she had paid the deposit, made an agreement and that they were acting in breach of contract. <snip>, the owner then proceeded to laugh heartily down the phone at my mother and repeated the words “breach of contract” in a mocking tone while continuing to laugh. I was listening in to the phonecall and at this point I became very annoyed, called him a “w@nker” in the background and asked my mother to hand me the phone. <snip> from <SNIP> then hung up the phone before she could give it to me.

We tried approximately 20 times over the next 1 ½ hours to call him, trying both the landline and mobile phones listed for <SNIP>, but they refused to answer. That was the end of the matter. On Monday, my mother managed to reach <SNIP> by phone and they told her that the 50 euro deposit had already been sent in the post. The money then arrived the next day.

Thankfully, the day wasn’t ruined and although we were left high and dry by <SNIP> in the most unprofessional and callous manner possible, we still managed to get a bouncy castle at the last minute. After trying a few phone numbers, we spoke to <SNIP> from <SNIP>. He was extremely helpful, and while he didn’t have any castles available himself at the last minute, he told us exactly who to contact and gave us some phone numbers. We then managed to get a bouncy castle from <SNIP> who is based in Carrick. The bouncy castle arrived in less than an hour, and a terrific time was had by all the kids present.

I’m a long time poster on the Waterford forum and I’m friends with lots of Waterford boardies in real life, all of whom will attest to my honest character. Everything I have posted here is 100% correct and accurate. I have no affiliation whatsoever with any of the above mentioned companies and individuals, I just don’t want to see someone as upset as my sister initially was on her big day.

If anyone would like any further information, feel free to send me a PM.

Thanks,
Danny.

callaway92

Just 1 or 2 things.

It was NOT a "breach of contract" by <SNIP> (fúcking hate people throwing this term around). To be honest I probably would've laughed like the man on the phone did but I think his hanging up and blatant question avoidance was poor enough.

The fact is though it's the original person who called out (<SNIP>) who made the error. She was the person who said it would be fine.

Hypothetically if worst came to worst and someone did get injured on the bouncy castle being put up, <SNIP> would've been liable for providing it in an unsafe area. If the guys that came out to put it up found that it was unsafe you would have to take their word for it. Again, not ringing you was slack though.

They returned your deposit at least but in doing so had awful customer service. I think it just comes down to don't use them again.

In the end of it all, I'd say it should be <SNIP> getting the blame.

nickcave

callaway92 wrote: »

Just 1 or 2 things.

It was NOT a "breach of contract" by <SNIP> (fúcking hate people throwing this term around). To be honest I probably would've laughed like the man on the phone.

OP's mother paid a consideration (€50) for the provision of a bouncy castle at a certain location on a certain day and both parties proceeded as if they intended to complete the agreement. The company in question showed intent at the point of the callout to survey the location and also the confirmation phone call.

That IS a contract for the provision of a service, and non-performance is no laughing matter I'm afraid.

callaway92

nickcave wrote: »

OP's mother paid a consideration (€50) for the provision of a bouncy castle at a certain location on a certain day and both parties proceeded as if they intended to complete the agreement. The company in question showed intent at the point of the callout to survey the location and also the confirmation phone call.

That IS a contract for the provision of a service, and non-performance is no laughing matter I'm afraid.

NO IT IS NOT

Daisy 55

That 's terrible! Regardless of whether a contract was made or not the OP was badly let down! Lucky the day wasn't spoiled for all. Will take the warning on board!

nickcave

callaway92 wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT

Yeah, it is. The National Consumer Agency says so, as does the Law.

callaway92

nickcave wrote: »

Yeah, it is. The National Consumer Agency says so, as does the Law.

You are definitely one of those people who goes into shops when not happy shouting "These are my rights!! They are in the constitution"...

shinzon

NCA Guidelines for entering into a contract over the phone

Entering into a contract over the phone

You can enter into a contract for many kinds of services over the phone. This type of contract is as valid and binding as a written one. However, the supplier of the service must make it clear to you that you are forming a contract over the phone with them, and that they will keep a record that you agree to this.

The rules on how contracts are made over the phone are set out in the Distance Selling Regulations. These laws say that the supplier must give you certain information about the contract, including details about the provider, the costs and the minimum length of the contract, as well as any terms and conditions.

The supplier must give you this information either in writing, or have it available in another form, like a recording of the phone call. If they don’t, then the contract cannot be enforced. This is one of the reasons why some companies tell you they may record your call with them.

Some suppliers may send the information to you, either in writing or by email. But companies are not obliged to send you the contract in writing. It is enough for them to keep a recording of the telephone conversation in case there is a dispute.

There may be many different terms and conditions in the contract which the company must make you aware of. However, it might not be practical to do this over the phone. In this case, many companies will send these terms and conditions to you in writing or by email.

To make sure both you and the supplier are agreeing to the same thing in a contract, you should ask for a copy of your terms and conditions and read them when they arrive.

Shin

Mr Tibbs

I'm sure everybody gets the same adverts on this site when they log on here. Right now in the right hand corner there's two adds for Bouncy Castles. Oh the irony.
Pretty poor service though, I thought Bouncy Castles went out with the celtic tiger.

Hoffmans

so was the bouncy castle you ended up with smaller than the original one you were ordering........

Aquos76

I'm closing this thread for the minute till I seek advice from others, I'm not sure that in this case we should be naming the company and an employee on a public forum. I appreciate that the OP feels they has been hard done, and I tend to agree to be honest, however I'm not sure this that this is the right way for airing their grievances

dudara

I have reopened this thread, and cleansed all reference to the company name and the names of its employees. Please do not refer to them by name again.

dudara

Dan133269

callaway92 wrote: »

Just 1 or 2 things.

It was NOT a "breach of contract" by <SNIP> (fúcking hate people throwing this term around). To be honest I probably would've laughed like the man on the phone did but I think his hanging up and blatant question avoidance was poor enough.

The fact is though it's the original person who called out (SNIP) who made the error. She was the person who said it would be fine.

Hypothetically if worst came to worst and someone did get injured on the bouncy castle being put up, SNIP would've been liable for providing it in an unsafe area. If the guys that came out to put it up found that it was unsafe you would have to take their word for it. Again, not ringing you was slack though.

They returned your deposit at least but in doing so had awful customer service. I think it just comes down to don't use them again.

In the end of it all, I'd say it should be SNIP getting the blame.

callaway92 wrote: »

NO IT IS NOT

callaway92 wrote: »

You are definitely one of those people who goes into shops when not happy shouting "These are my rights!! They are in the constitution"...

This is very ironic. The only person shouting (using capital letters) and not explaining anything is you. It has been pointed out by nickcave that there was breach of contract, as explained:

nickcave wrote: »

OP's mother paid a consideration (€50) for the provision of a bouncy castle at a certain location on a certain day and both parties proceeded as if they intended to complete the agreement. The company in question showed intent at the point of the callout to survey the location and also the confirmation phone call.

That IS a contract for the provision of a service, and non-performance is no laughing matter I'm afraid.

Nickcave has explained exactly why there was a contract and hence why there was a breach. By all means, please explain using legal reasoning why there wasn't. Simply saying "NO IT IS NOT" is not very constructive.

According to your logic, if the bouncy castle was provided as agreed, we could have simply told the supplier to go swivel afterwards if he asked for payment as there was no contract.

If you're the kind of person to laugh at a customer when they point out your legal duties, then you probably wouldn't be very good working with the public.

Regarding the fault of the individual employee, I understood what you're saying but you cannot make an artificial distinction between her actions and that of the company. She works for SNIP and clearly has the authority to enter into agreements and contracts on their behalf, i.e. she is acting as their agent. It is entirely reasonable for a third party to believe that she has this authority due to her answering questions regarding availability, pricing, calling to inspect property and accepting deposits. In short, her actions were not her personal ones, but rather she was acting as a representative of SNIP Bouncy Castles.

Hoffmans wrote: »

so was the bouncy castle you ended up with smaller than the original one you were ordering........

I don't know to be honest. The sister didn't really mind, she only wanted to have any bouncy castle for her and her friends.

vicwatson

In order for a contract to be a binding contract you must have the following -

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

In the op's case his mother paid consideration (in this case money of €50.00) and this makes the contract legal binding.

Above all that I imagine most bouncy castle companies rely on word-of-mouth and repeat business for their businesses and it's bad form overlooking this fact by them.

If your happy with them you'll tell 10 people. Unhappy with them and you'll tell 100.

sandin

Health and safety takes precedence over all other concerns. If the person erecting the castle deemed it to be unsafe, then that's his perogative.

Or put it another way - you mother had the children of many many parents and you did not care for their safety? - for arguments sake lets say there was an accident, the hse inspect tge area and say it was unsuitable for a bouncy castle. What do you think the court would say?????

Safety is paramount!

sandin

vicwatson wrote: »

In order for a contract to be a binding contract you must have the following -

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

In the op's case his mother paid consideration (in this case money of €50.00) and this makes the contract legal binding.

Above all that I imagine most bouncy castle companies rely on word-of-mouth and repeat business for their businesses and it's bad form overlooking this fact by them.

If your happy with them you'll tell 10 people. Unhappy with them and you'll tell 100.

Will you quote this to the next airline that cancels a flight due to one engine being out? Will you insist they fly you cos you have a "contract"

P. Breathnach

sandin wrote: »

Will you quote this to the next airline that cancels a flight due to one engine being out? Will you insist they fly you cos you have a "contract"

That's not a very effective rhetorical argument: if a flight is cancelled or delayed, it's well-established that airlines still have obligations to their passengers.

Dan133269

sandin wrote: »

Health and safety takes precedence over all other concerns. If the person erecting the castle deemed it to be unsafe, then that's his perogative.

Or put it another way - you mother had the children of many many parents and you did not care for their safety? - for arguments sake lets say there was an accident, the hse inspect tge area and say it was unsuitable for a bouncy castle. What do you think the court would say?????

Safety is paramount!

Of course, safety is absolutely paramount. My mother, and everyone else present had the utmost consideration for safety. Just because the driver said that there was a safety issue doesn't make it so. Remember that the employee of the bouncy castle company called out and determined that the garden was perfectly safe for a bouncy castle. And the eventual supplier set up a bouncy castle with no problems whatsoever. It wasn't the first time we have had bouncy castles in that garden either.

I'd hazard a guess that taking everything into account - including the fact that the delivery man apparently called while we were not there, even though it was hours after his scheduled arrival time - it is probably that the company made a mistake, double booked the particular castle and then realised at the last moment and decided to use this as an excuse rather than let us know that they didn't have a castle for us. I'm not saying this definitely happened but it seems a likely explanation.

daaave

don't think any of that would have happened with the previous owner of the company

Dan133269

daaave wrote: »

don't think any of that would have happened with the previous owner of the company

Funnily enough, that's exactly what we were told by a couple of other bouncy castle providers over the phone. Are you connected to the previous owner?

daaave

Dan133269 wrote: »

Funnily enough, that's exactly what we were told by a couple of other bouncy castle providers over the phone. Are you connected to the previous owner?

you could say that!
the amount of repeat customers who have stopped using that company is crazy.
other local providers have benefited from it over the past couple of years. they have been told about the customers dissatisfaction since the company in question has changed hands(main differences being hefty price increases and lack of flexibility regarding delivery/pickup times)

imo, the prices nowadays are extortionate even if we were back in the celtic tiger,surely if anything prices should have been heading in the opposite direction?

Dan133269

daaave wrote: »

you could say that!
the amount of repeat customers who have stopped using that company is crazy.
other local providers have benefited from it over the past couple of years. they have been told about the customers dissatisfaction since the company in question has changed hands(main differences being hefty price increases and lack of flexibility regarding delivery/pickup times)

imo, the prices nowadays are extortionate even if we were back in the celtic tiger,surely if anything prices should have been heading in the opposite direction?

After our experience, I'm not surprised. I suppose the market for bouncy castles is a unique one, a lot people will probably hire them only once or twice in their lifetime so customer loyalty and customer satisfaction is not really an issue, people will just phone the first phone number they find in the local paper. I'm glad to hear that other suppliers have been getting more business. The good ones I mentioned (who the mods subsequently deleted) were very helpful and professional.

daaave

Dan133269 wrote: »

After our experience, I'm not surprised. I suppose the market for bouncy castles is a unique one, a lot people will probably hire them only once or twice in their lifetime so customer loyalty and customer satisfaction is not really an issue, people will just phone the first phone number they find in the local paper. I'm glad to hear that other suppliers have been getting more business. The good ones I mentioned (who the mods subsequently deleted) were very helpful and professional.

on the contrary, I think customer satisfaction/ loyalty is vital. imagine you are in the bouncy castle business. you put up a castle/slide in somebody's back garden for a communion. the communion boy/girl comes out to give the papal blessing followed by their 2 younger siblings.
now you're thinking if I give a good service/ offer a discount for repeat custom, i'll have this family sewn up for the confirmation too, aswell as the younger siblings communion/confirmations. now all of a sudden you are looking at potentially putting up a bouncy castle in the same back garden six times! that's not to mention the family/friends who'll be there on the communion day who'll be enquiring about where you got the castle and how much you paid for it. simply leaving a couple of 10 or 20 euro off vouchers for the family could see a serious amount of repeat business from that 1 booking.
its not rocket science, when you are in any service industry you should always have customers who are 100% satisfied as they are your best form of advertisement.

Dan133269

daaave wrote: »

on the contrary, I think customer satisfaction/ loyalty is vital. imagine you are in the bouncy castle business. you put up a castle/slide in somebody's back garden for a communion. the communion boy/girl comes out to give the papal blessing followed by their 2 younger siblings.
now you're thinking if I give a good service/ offer a discount for repeat custom, i'll have this family sewn up for the confirmation too, aswell as the younger siblings communion/confirmations. now all of a sudden you are looking at potentially putting up a bouncy castle in the same back garden six times! that's not to mention the family/friends who'll be there on the communion day who'll be enquiring about where you got the castle and how much you paid for it. simply leaving a couple of 10 or 20 euro off vouchers for the family could see a serious amount of repeat business from that 1 booking.
its not rocket science, when you are in any service industry you should always have customers who are 100% satisfied as they are your best form of advertisement.

Ah yes, you're right. I never thought about it like that.
You're spot on with satisfied customers being the best of advertisement too.

By the way, if anyone wants to know the name of the company in question, or the good companies who come recommended, just send me a PM.

mrjoneill

vicwatson wrote: »

In order for a contract to be a binding contract you must have the following -

1. Offer
2. Acceptance
3. Consideration

In the op's case his mother paid consideration (in this case money of €50.00) and this makes the contract legal binding.

Above all that I imagine most bouncy castle companies rely on word-of-mouth and repeat business for their businesses and it's bad form overlooking this fact by them.

If your happy with them you'll tell 10 people. Unhappy with them and you'll tell 100.

Was there an offer and was there acceptance, that’s the key, the offer was by the consumer and the acceptance was by the provider of the service thus a valid contract was formed. Only snag could be where it was voidable for mistake. But I would argue in the above case the provider of the service made the mistake and they should have given other options. And to quantify the loss while it can lead to a lot of crying for a little child to have its day spoiled, how does one quantify this as the courts are into putting such breaches in to the state previous the breach. In general, damages are not awarded for non-pecuniary loss such as mental distress and loss of enjoyment, except for vary rare circumstances.