Cancelling my Wedding Band - HELP!

BenEadir

Melendez wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't agree that it is a consumer contract governed by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act but as I have said previously I am very open to correction. Can you prove it is a consumer contract as defined by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act? Are bands "ordinarily" engaged by consumers or are they "ordinarily" engaged by agents, venues, event organisers etc? I believe the latter and the fact the OP engaged them directly doesn't mean they are "ordinarily" engaged by consumers, it just means that in a minority of cases they are engaged directly by consumers.

Also, even if this contract was governed by the Sale of goods and Supply of Services Act where does it say that the consumer is entitled to cancel with no more liability than the deposit already paid? I am genuinely interested to know as I'm not intimately familiar with the act.

BenEadir

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Quite frankly I am giving the op an "opinion" which is all anyone can expect for on a public forum. It is no less valid than your fear mongering, because like I said they're only opinions.

Personally I'd arrange a meeting with the band and make a new verbal agreement that they can keep the deposit. But hey that is my opinion.

Opinions are like ar$eholes, everyones got one right :P

My opinion is backed up by 25 years dealing with business contracts and whilst all opinions may indeed by valid some are informed and some are ill informed. The OP can decide which are valuable to him and which aren't.

SterlingArcher

BenThere wrote: »

Opinions are like ar$eholes, everyones got one right :P

My opinion is backed up by 25 years dealing with business contracts and whilst all opinions may indeed by valid some are informed and some are ill informed. The OP can decide which are valuable to him and which aren't.

Ben I'm gonna go right ahead and call bull.
What ifs and half truths are all I seen.

BenEadir

maximoose wrote: »

Your argument makes zero sense

OP can't cancel the booking without penalty as "no such discussion was had and no such cancellation clause exists"

but

Band can request full payment of the agreed fee upon cancellation even though "no such discussion was had and no such cancellation clause exists"

Logic ftw.

No, you are either being deliberately obtuse or looking for an argument.

The parties agreed that the band would play at the wedding. Providing they are available to do so but are prevented from doing so by the OP they have upheld their end of the contract and are entitled to be paid as they can clearly show a financial loss due to the OP not fulfilling his end of the deal. If the OP cancelled well in advance such that the band secured an alternative gig on the night the only loss they could show would be the difference between what they were due to be paid (an additional €1,950) and what they earned from the alternative gig. If the alternative gig paid €1,500 they would, in theory, have a claim of €450 against the OP.

It is for this reason that the oil company example wasn't valid. Cancelling 1,000 litres of oil at the last minute doesn't result in a loss to the oil company as they will sell those exact 1,000 litres later the same day for the same amount.

BenEadir

SterlingArcher wrote: »

Ben I'm gonna go right ahead and call bull.
What ifs and half truths are all I seen.

You mean "are all I see".

Understanding the detail in these things is critical. A skill I see you are well endowed with.

Steviemoyne

Any chance of getting back on topic? My popcorn is being wasted.

Edit: Clarity, I was joking. Been following this thread from the start. Find it entertaining for the following reasons:
1. It's a bad thing for something to have happen near a wedding, 2. Was not aware that the band didn't have to provide t&c's (would expect it to be similar to the mis-sold PPI issue with banks off my own lack of knowledge...but apparently not). 3. It's just plain interesting seeing the almost 50/50 spread of people on the OP's and perople on the bands "side".

Steviemoyne

Aye it was bad taste edited to clarify it was a joke.

But it has no correlation to the following does it? The whole PPI issue or even the whole T&Cs having to be defined to the customer? I'm genuinely interested since when it comes to software, be I a non-commercial or commercial user of software I get hit with agreements, terms and conditions etc when installing. One would think that the person buying the product / service would have to be made aware of terms and conditions regardless of the type of product or service in some shape or form.

BenEadir

Steviemoyne wrote: »

Was not aware that the band didn't have to provide t&c's (would expect it to be similar to the mis-sold PPI issue with banks

Seriously Stevie, comparing a 4 piece wedding band, who by the sound of it don't have a pot to piss in, selling a two hour (or whatever it is) band service with a an organisation which has thousands of staff, is regulated by government and is worth hundreds of millions or even billions of Euro fraudulently selling inappropriate insurance to people who don't need it is not only comparing apples and oranges, you're comparing a childs dinky car to an Airbus 380!!

goz83

OK, I only read the first 2 pages, so excuse me if I am repeating what others may have said. I run a business and I have been on the wrong end of the stick with clients cancelling last minute, or not showing up for a therapy service I offer. I have terms and conditions in place and I also insist on a booking fee, which acts as a deposit. Every business is different. I am happy with 2 days notice, or more. But if I were a singer, or band member (especially if weddings were my crust), I would be seeking 6 MONTHS notice. 6 weeks is just really bad form and is totally insufficient.

However, I would not expect compensation if I had no terms and conditions in place. The €50 deposit would be a hard knock to fall back on, but that's just the way it is, unless I could prove that there were cancellation terms in place.

To the OP. You know you have done wrong by the band. Maybe offer them €500 compensation as said before. Although it seems that you don't have to pay them anything (judging from your original post), it's still the right thing to do, because your change of mind at the last fence has put these people out of pocket. You are the one in the wrong. You should fix it. Can I ask what the new band is charging?

BenEadir

Steviemoyne wrote: »

Aye it was bad taste edited to clarify it was a joke.

But it has no correlation to the following does it? The whole PPI issue or even the whole T&Cs having to be defined to the customer? I'm genuinely interested since when it comes to software, be I a non-commercial or commercial user of software I get hit with agreements, terms and conditions etc when installing. One would think that the person buying the product / service would have to be made aware of terms and conditions regardless of the type of product or service in some shape or form.

You're 100% right there Stevie and I often wonder about the acceptance of such T&C's. How many times do you download a piece of software or sign up for a website and tick the "accept the T&C's" box without even looking at them? I do it all the time. I actually looked at the T&C's a few times and not only are they pages and pages long but they are written in a style which required a law degree to follow. By right it should be impossible to accept the T&C's less than 10 minutes after you start the sign up process as it would take anyone that much time to actually read them but I'll bet you 95% of all such sign ups are done in a timeframe where the person signing up couldn't possibly have read the T&C's yet they (we/I) accept them all the time and are probably bound by them as a result. Just goes to show you eh?

Also, a big issue here is whether the contract was a consumer one or not. If it was the band may have been obliged to issue the OP with some T&C's but I personally don't think it was a consumer transaction although I'm prepared to change my mind if someone can prove otherwise.

maximoose

BenThere wrote: »

No, you are either being deliberately obtuse or looking for an argument.

Turn your superiority complex down a notch there.

Getting back to this:

I don't agree that it is a consumer contract governed by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act but as I have said previously I am very open to correction. Can you prove it is a consumer contract as defined by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act? .

Just going by the CIB:

Generally speaking a consumer is defined in Irish law as a natural person who buys goods or a service for personal use or consumption from someone whose business it is to sell goods or provide services. By law, you are not a consumer if you:

Receive goods as a gift
Buy goods for commercial purposes (i.e. you will be using the goods for commercial and not private use)
Buy goods for private use that are normally used for business purposes
Buy goods from an individual who is not in business (i.e. you buy a car from an individual whose normal business is not selling cars)

IMO the OP is definitely a consumer. Service has been requested for personal use.

Are bands "ordinarily" engaged by consumers or are they "ordinarily" engaged by agents, venues, event organisers etc? I believe the latter and the fact the OP engaged them directly doesn't mean they are "ordinarily" engaged by consumers, it just means that in a minority of cases they are engaged directly by consumers

Now, unless the OP has hired some stellar international act to be their Wedding band I think it's a fair assumption to make that the band in question is primarily a Wedding Band, that make their money from private bookings for personal use.

Steviemoyne

BenThere wrote: »

You're 100% right there Stevie and I often wonder about the acceptance of such T&C's. How many times do you download a piece of software or sign up for a website and tick the "accept the T&C's" box without even looking at them?

9 times out of 10 I just continue without reading.

I check them all the time if I have to enter any information regarding myself or my online persona (emails and the like).

I also check them if it's software I consider suspect or if I'm installing something work related then I always check them to find out my limitations on using them for commercial use.

Just a shame there isn't some sort of requirement that t&c's always have to be produced in my opinion.

bladebrew

It is an interesting split in opinion on this thread, but why would properly run companies bother with proper contracts and deposits if half assed companies can have no paper trail, tiny deposits and get the same cover?
Would a judge even listen to this in court? It's a verbal agreement so I imagine worthless or everyone would just rely on them?
I have booked in the past few weeks a campervan, a car, numerous hotels, day trips and bought a car, everyone of these had some deposit and everyone of them had cancellation policies in place just incase I cancelled,
the band did nothing so how could they possibly have the same rights as everyone else??

BenEadir

maximoose wrote: »

IMO the OP is definitely a consumer. Service has been requested for personal use.

Requesting a service, which is otherwise normally delivered on a commercial basis, for personal use doesn't make you a consumer and doesn't make the contract a consumer contract. The passage you quoted confirms this:-

By law, you are not a consumer if you:

Receive goods as a gift
Buy goods for commercial purposes (i.e. you will be using the goods for commercial and not private use)
Buy goods for private use that are normally used for business purposes
Buy goods from an individual who is not in business (i.e. you buy a car from an individual whose normal business is not selling cars)

maximoose wrote: »

Now, unless the OP has hired some stellar international act to be their Wedding band I think it's a fair assumption to make that the band in question is primarily a Wedding Band, that make their money from private bookings for personal use.

That is indeed an interesting argument Maximoose. "Bands" in general are commercial in my opinion i.e. they play mostly in pubs, clubs, events etc but could a band which presents themselves as a wedding band be deemed to ordinarily contract with consumers? I think it is indeed a possibility and if that were to be true then maybe they did (unbeknownst to themselves even) have an obligation to issue T&C's to the OP the absence of which gives the OP a legal free pass to forego the €50 deposit and tell the band that because they didn't provide him with the T&C's required under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act (I assume they have to do that as it's been mentioned here several times but I'm not intimately familiar with the act) he's not obliged to pay them anything other than the €50 deposit they already have.

I still think he should send them a cheque for cancelling them at short notice but given their own contribution to the situation (if they should have issued T&C's and didn't) he could justifiably reduce the proposed payoff by a suitable amount.

BenEadir

bladebrew wrote: »

It is an interesting split in opinion on this thread, but why would properly run companies bother with proper contracts and deposits if half assed companies can have no paper trail, tiny deposits and get the same cover?
Would a judge even listen to this in court? It's a verbal agreement so I imagine worthless or everyone would just rely on them?
I have booked in the past few weeks a campervan, a car, numerous hotels, day trips and bought a car, everyone of these had some deposit and everyone of them had cancellation policies in place just incase I cancelled,
the band did nothing so how could they possibly have the same rights as everyone else??

The aforementioned companies make proving their case easier by having written contracts and T&C's and the presence of such documents also prevent you, the consumer, from acting the maggot as the documents also send out a subliminal message that if you mess with them they have the documents to nail you.

Written agreements are always preferable to verbal agreements for the reasons I just outlined but verbal agreements are just as binding. Harder to prove, but just as binding.

desbrook

I'm sure a lot of you like me weren't ( and maybe aren't ) 100% sure of the definition of a deposit . I 've just looked it up .

Before hand I would have said it was defined as a portion of a price of a service payable upfront which by definition would be forfeited in the case of the buyer unilaterally pulling out or changing terms eg. changing dates

NOT SO !

A deposit is defined as "a sum payable as a first instalment on the purchase of something or as a pledge for a contract, the balance being payable later "

As has been stated the contract to play for 2000 on zyz night is made with the deposit and no more . There are no inherent terms laid out for cancellation therefore the bands are entitiled to losses incurred .

Melendez

This post has been deleted.

BizzyC

BenThere wrote: »

Not true. There is a verbal contract confirmed by the payment of a deposit. A verbal contract is just as valid as a written contract.

True, but what exactly are the terms of this contract?
OP provided the deposit requested, the band never provided any other terms or conditions to protect themselves in terms of payment.

Upon accepting the deposit they entered into their verbal contract under the conditions as had been agreed.

OP did nothing that breached those terms by cancelling in advance and forfeiting his deposit, so where is the recourse for the band here?


I'm not saying that the lack of written contract means there is no obligation here, his deposit is forfeit.
I'm saying that the band should have specified better terms in a written contract and that they made a big mistake by not doing so.
It's too late for them to make demands when these terms weren't part of the original agreement the OP entered in to.

md23040

Along the context of a wedding would be seen as commercial, in this case a contract between an individual and a company/entity would always be governed under consumer law, but in the context of this case, any settlement fee would only be relevant from a legal point of view had you entered into a written contract with stringent contingency clauses in the event of cancellation. As in this case it is an implied contract through a booking deposit then the issue has no legal merit and does not have to be honoured by either party.

Even had you signed a stringent contract this may not fully stand in a court of law unless the supplier i.e. band could provide proof of opportunity loss of income, and at six weeks out for a band to lose a date would not be warranted as reasonable grounds from a compensation point of view.

Had the band been cancelled the day of the wedding after turning up to the events and were out considerable expense then this may be viewed differently.

Whenever the booking was made, or the amount of deposit paid are frankly irrelevant in this case, but the forfeiture for cancellation at the same time would be the deposit, and again this would be seen as reasonable (as demanded by the vendour or band at the outset) in the event of no service provided.

A business or entity can not have implied contractual conditions through the payment of a deposit, this thread is absolute nonsense, otherwise all restaurants/hotels or similar types of businesses would be chasing customers through the courts constantly for cancelling their booking etc.– no service was given so no service has to be paid for and that’s unfortunately it.

BenEadir

BizzyC wrote: »

True, but what exactly are the terms of this contract?

The two terms of the contract were as simple as it gets:-

1. The band would play at the OP's wedding on the agreed date
2. The Op would pay the band a total of €2,000 payable €50 on engagement (agreeing the contract) and €1,950 on the night of the performance.

No other terms were agreed so no other terms can be exercised by either party. The OP doesn't have a right to cancel without incurring a liability to pay the balance and the band equally don't have a right to cancel. If they do and the OP has to spend more to hire a replacement at short notice they will be liable for the difference between what the OP owed them and what he had to pay the replacement band.

BenEadir

md23040 wrote: »

Along the context of a wedding would be seen as commercial, in this case a contract between an individual and a company/entity would always be governed under consumer law, but in the context of this case, any settlement fee would only be relevant from a legal point of view had you entered into a written contract with stringent contingency clauses in the event of cancellation. As in this case it is an implied contract through a booking deposit then the issue has no legal merit and does not have to be honoured by either party.

Even had you signed a stringent contract this may not fully stand in a court of law unless the supplier i.e. band could provide proof of opportunity loss of income, and at six weeks out for a band to lose a date would not be warranted as reasonable grounds from a compensation point of view.

Had the band been cancelled the day of the wedding after turning up to the events and were out considerable expense then this may be viewed differently.

Whenever the booking was made, or the amount of deposit paid are frankly irrelevant in this case, but the forfeiture for cancellation at the same time would be the deposit, and again this would be seen as reasonable (as demanded by the vendour or band at the outset) in the event of no service provided.

A business or entity can not have implied contractual conditions through the payment of a deposit, this thread is absolute nonsense, otherwise all restaurants/hotels or similar types of businesses would be chasing customers through the courts constantly for cancelling their booking etc.– no service was given so no service has to be paid for and that’s unfortunately it.

That's quite an incoherent ramble there md23040. By that logic the OP would have no claim against the band if they didn't show up and ruined his wedding other than reclaiming the €50 deposit he had paid them. Correct?

BenEadir

desbrook wrote: »

I'm sure a lot of you like me weren't ( and maybe aren't ) 100% sure of the definition of a deposit . I 've just looked it up .

Before hand I would have said it was defined as a portion of a price of a service payable upfront which by definition would be forfeited in the case of the buyer unilaterally pulling out or changing terms eg. changing dates

NOT SO !

A deposit is defined as "a sum payable as a first instalment on the purchase of something or as a pledge for a contract, the balance being payable later "

As has been stated the contract to play for 2000 on zyz night is made with the deposit and no more . There are no inherent terms laid out for cancellation therefore the bands are entitiled to losses incurred .

Straight to the top of the class for you desbrook with a gold star to bring home to show Mammy and Daddy

Dermighty

Evil_Bilbo wrote: »

I appreciate that they may be out of pocket over this...I appreciate this is their livelihood...

You obviously don't appreciate these things though.


Realistically they have to accept less money than they had planned to receive (unless paid the full cost of the gig) and they have to get another gig to replace it.

BenEadir

goz83 wrote: »

However, I would not expect compensation if I had no terms and conditions in place.

And you'd be correct there Goz83 as you offer a therapy service "ordinarily" used by consumers hence governable by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act requiring you to provide such T&C's.

The band are unlikely (possible but unlikely) to be deemed to be offering a service ordinarily supplied to consumers (normally supplied to the owner of a pub, a venue, an event organiser etc) so they had no obligation to provide T&C's other than what they verbally agreed with the OP.

If its clearly the case that the service they offer is governed by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act then their omission to supply the OP with their T&C's would, in my opinion, give the OP a get out of jail card as I previously outlined.

who_me

Moral of the story (for bands & those arranging an event) : Agree on all these things up front, ideally in writing. Things happen, plans change, events get cancelled. A wink and a nod shouldn't really be good enough, especially when there's a fair amount of money at stake.

BizzyC

BenThere wrote: »

The two terms of the contract were as simple as it gets:-

1. The band would play at the OP's wedding on the agreed date
2. The Op would pay the band a total of €2,000 payable €50 on engagement (agreeing the contract) and €1,950 on the night of the performance.

No other terms were agreed so no other terms can be exercised by either party. The OP doesn't have a right to cancel without incurring a liability to pay the balance and the band equally don't have a right to cancel. If they do and the OP has to spend more to hire a replacement at short notice they will be liable for the difference between what the OP owed them and what he had to pay the replacement band.

€50 is paid to secure the date of booking.
The band get €1950 on the night in exchange for a service.
They're no longer providing this service.

You say the OP doesn't have the right to cancel without liability to the total amount.
Where is this liability defined?

Also, not sure on this point, but isn't there a legal requirement to have written contracts for agreements over a certain amount of money?

BenEadir

who_me wrote: »

Moral of the story (for bands & those arranging an event) : Agree on all these things up front, ideally in writing. Things happen, plans change, events get cancelled. A wink and a nod shouldn't really be good enough, especially when there's a fair amount of money at stake.

100% there who_me. In fairness to the OP however, bad and all as his decision to switch band late in the day was, it is primarily up to the band to protect themselves by taking sufficient deposit and having a written contract which their clients sign at the time of engagement. By not having a good engagement process in place the band leave themselves open to having their gig cancelled for whimsical reasons and they consequently don't have a very good position from which to negotiate compensation for loss of earnings.

BenEadir

BizzyC wrote: »

€50 is paid to secure the date of booking.
The band get €1950 on the night in exchange for a service.
They're no longer providing this service.

You say the OP doesn't have the right to cancel without liability to the total amount.
Where is this liability defined?

The OP's breach of contract cannot be self fulfilling i.e. by cancelling them he cannot then argue they didn't provide a service so therefore he owes them nothing.

BizzyC wrote: »

Also, not sure on this point, but isn't there a legal requirement to have written contracts for agreements over a certain amount of money?

Not that I'm aware of there isn't.

BizzyC

BenThere wrote: »

And you'd be correct there Goz83 as you offer a therapy service "ordinarily" used by consumers hence governable by the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act requiring you to provide such T&C's.

Actually you bring up a good point here...
In general while playing in Pubs etc the bar will have a licence for the music played and will hire bands to play.

A band that is hired to play functions etc however must be a registered entity with IMRO so that all royalties for covers and proper taxes are paid.

Assuming the band isn't operating illegally, surely the OP is covered by the act?

BenEadir

BizzyC wrote: »

A band that is hired to play functions etc however must be a registered entity with IMRO so that all royalties for covers and proper taxes are paid.

Really? I genuinely didn't know that and am surprised to hear that. I thought live performance of covers wouldn't attract any form of royalty payment just like the cover versions on those cheap supermarket CD's don't (AFAIK) have to pay any royalties hence they are so cheap. are you 100% sure about this Bizzy? Can you link to the relevant legislation?

BizzyC wrote: »

Assuming the band isn't operating illegally, surely the OP is covered by the act?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Is it that if the band aren't registered with IMRO (which I don't think they'd have to be anyway) any contracts entered into with them would be null and void thus allowing the OP off the hook? If that logic prevailed any entity which doesn't comply with the law couldn't enforce any of its contracts. Have you ever bought a drink in a pub outside (usually after not before!!) opening hours? By your logic once you received the drink you could say "ha, I'm not keeping my end of the agreement and paying you because you're breaking the law" or even better, you could hire a removal company to move house from Dublin to Paris, agree to pay them €15,000 and then follow them to Rosslare videoing them doing 35km in a 30km zone thus breaking the law and thus enabling you to avoid paying the €15,000 you owe them after they have dropped off your stuff in Paris.