Cancelling my Wedding Band - HELP!

BizzyC

BenThere wrote: »

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?

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".

I know from experience.
I've registered with IMRO more than once.
If the venue isn't paying IMRO, then the band has to if they have any covers in their setlist.

I'm saying that if we assume that the band is a registered entity, which they should be if they're taking wedding bookings, then the OP is covered by the act no?

donegal.

its the venue not the band that registers with imro/ppi and pays the royalties for the cover versions


Bands etc join imro so they can collect royalties from their original music.

BenEadir

BizzyC wrote: »

I know from experience.
I've registered with IMRO more than once.
If the venue isn't paying IMRO, then the band has to if they have any covers in their setlist.

I'm saying that if we assume that the band is a registered entity, which they should be if they're taking wedding bookings, then the OP is covered by the act no?

No, the band, in the absence of the venue being registered, would be covered by the Act, not the OP. Anyway, it's a moot point as I'm 100% certain the venue the OP booked for the wedding, unless it's a tent in a field in the middle of nowhere, will be registered with IMRO thus (by your own example above) absolving the band from registering with IMRO i.e. "If the venue isn't paying IMRO, then the band has to"

mikom

Learning loads from this thread folks........... love reading all the pub talk by "mouths" being debunked.
Keep it up.

BenEadir

mikom wrote: »

Learning loads from this thread folks........... love reading all the pub talk by "mouths" being debunked.
Keep it up.

Please please please tell me I'm a debunker and not a mouth??? :eek:

mikom

BenThere wrote: »

Please please please tell me I'm a debunker and not a mouth??? :eek:

That's for IMRO to know, and you to find out..........

BizzyC

donegal. wrote: »

its the venue not the band that registers with imro/ppi and pays the royalties for the cover versions

Not always, I've played venues that didn't have a licence and required us to write a cheque to imro.

donegal.

BizzyC wrote: »

Not always, I've played venues that didn't have a licence and required us to write a cheque to imro.

in fairness i know a few venues that never pay imro (and have massive bills that they've no intentions of paying). I didn't know that cover bands where expected to write a cheque.

clint_silver

I play in a band.

We let cancellations go. We get about 1 in every 50 bookings so its rare enough.
Mostly weddings called off for whatever reason. could be they split, could be financial, 1 of them lost their job, bride got pregnant, someone got sick, they had to move the wedding and we werent available for moved date. Here's the thing, if its genuine, we have to just take it, its not worth the hassle going after them and they dont need us chasing them.

Sometimes it nots genuine like here where the customer just changed their mind. Thats just not a good enough reason. but I think thats only happened 1-2 times over last 10 years because people are genuine by and large. so we just let it go when it does. Karma will come back on them.

To the OP, would you mind if your boss just took 200e out of your wages and when you questioned him, he said "ah sure you get paid enough anyway". That just what youve done to this band. "I tried to tell you a few weeks ago about it" just doesnt change what youve done.

The band also needs to change the way they do things, either up the deposit rate, get better business practices where they either let it go or have clearly defined T&Cs. Is that any excuse for OP trying to get away with it? none at all. Poor form. But Id say OP will probably get away with it.

md23040

BenThere wrote: »

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?

Can you show me legal precedent under any statute of Irish law for a vendor suing successfully for services not provided, with or without a contract - you should be able to show loads of examples.

The chances of success remains very low imho unless the vendor is able to show serious opportunity loss. But please rather than talking about my ramblings, show me precedent in law.

In the context of the example above the case would be difficult to sue sucessfully for compensation, the band could come up with any excuse - i.e. the van broke down etc.

By your logic, a hair dresser not able to do the brides hair and an appointment has been booked in advance (implied contract) fails to turn up to work that day, then has the bride the right to seek redress? Not likely. Your case remains fanciful useless you provide precedent.



Edit addon - bands playing covers do not have to register with IMRO or PPI for playing music. The venue is liable, same as a DJ would be exempt too within a nightclub and the onus on the operator only.





..

Godge

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.

Agreed but only up to a point.


All contracts are terminable with reasonable notice, unless otherwise specified in the contract.

The question, then is, what constitutes reasonable notice. This would vary depending on the contract. In the absence of guidance, a court would probably consider what is reasonable in the relevant profession/industry. The answer therefore would be what other wedding bands normally do.



http://www.burges-salmon.com/Practices/disputes_and_litigation/News/12025.aspx

Interesting link that backs up my point.

BenEadir

Godge wrote: »

Agreed but only up to a point.

All contracts are terminable with reasonable notice, unless otherwise specified in the contract.

You state this with such certainty, how/where did you determine there is an implied cancellation clause in every contract? It's honestly news to me but I'm open to the idea if you can substantiate it.

BenEadir

md23040 wrote: »

Can you show me legal precedent under any statute of Irish law for a vendor suing successfully for services not provided, with or without a contract - you should be able to show loads of examples.

Seriously? Much as I'm happy to contribute the benefit of my experience to the OP and this thread in general I'm not going to trawl through court records/publications to prove my point. Unless the band are able to source a replacement gig at short notice (any shotgun wedding service providers out there? ) they will indeed be "able to show serious opportunity loss" and thus have a claim against the OP. You are kind of making the point for me, thanks for that

The other example you give about the band's van breaking down isn't relevant. The OP made a deliberate decision on a whim. If the band didn't turn up because their van broke down it would not be a whim, it would be circumstances outside their control, look up force majeure. Totally different thing.

Same goes for the hairdresser. If she took the booking, received a deposit (very unlikely) and then didn't turn up the bride could in theory sue for the difference between what she had agreed to pay the hairdresser and what she ended up paying a replacement hairdresser who may have charged a premium to squeeze the bride in at short notice. Does that happen? No. Why? Because suing for such small amounts is not worth the hassle.

Interestingly, to me anyway, is the point that should the wedding have been cancelled due to an event outside the control of the OP e.g. the hotel was burned to the ground or maybe even the OP lost his job and couldn't afford to have the wedding he planned, it would be very unlikely that the band would have any claim against him.

In part it is the whimsical nature of the breach combined with the relative short notice (6 weeks is short notice in a business where bookings are made 12 months in advance) which makes the OP liable for the bands financial loss.

BenEadir

Godge wrote: »

http://www.burges-salmon.com/Practices/disputes_and_litigation/News/12025.aspx

Interesting link that backs up my point.

Good research there Godge. Would 6 weeks notice in a market where bookings are made 12 months in advance be deemed reasonable? According to the guide you linked to

"When assessing how long is reasonable, commercial parties and the court should consider:

the general circumstances and practices of the relevant trade (ie market practice)"

I don't think 6 weeks prior to a wedding is sufficient practice or an accepted practice in the wedding band trade. If we examined 100 contracts entered into between wedding bands and people like the OP how many would contain a clause allowing the OP side of the contract to cancel the gig with 6 weeks notice on retention of a deposit equivalent to 2.5% of the agreed fee? Not many would be my guess and therefore what the OP did was not a "practice of the relevant trade" so even if a cancellation clause can be implied (which isn't certain BTW despite the example you linked to) I don't think the OP's action would be deemed to be reasonable notice.

Godge

BenThere wrote: »

Good research there Godge. Would 6 weeks notice in a market where bookings are made 12 months in advance be deemed reasonable? According to the guide you linked to

"When assessing how long is reasonable, commercial parties and the court should consider:

the general circumstances and practices of the relevant trade (ie market practice)"

I don't think 6 weeks prior to a wedding is sufficient practice or an accepted practice in the wedding band trade. If we examined 100 contracts entered into between wedding bands and people like the OP how many would contain a clause allowing the OP side of the contract to cancel the gig with 6 weeks notice on retention of a deposit equivalent to 2.5% of the agreed fee? Not many would be my guess and therefore what the OP did was not a "practice of the relevant trade" so even if a cancellation clause can be implied (which isn't certain BTW despite the example you linked to) I don't think the OP's action would be deemed to be reasonable notice.

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news%5CContractTermination.htm


https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2013/uk/reasonable-notice-to-terminate-and-good-faith

It is now settled law that there is an implied clause to cancel a contract with reasonable notice.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/80262/Contract+Law/What+Constitutes+Reasonable+Notice+To+Terminate

there are plenty more examples on the web that consider reasonable notice and confirm that it is an implied term of unwritten and not fully written contracts.

In this case, we don't have any information on what a wedding band would constitute reasonable notice.

However, if you go back through the thread, the OP mentions at one stage that in all other cases of things he had booked for his wedding, cancellation with more than 28 days could occur without penalty (other than forfeit of the deposit). If he is right about that, and if he can prove he contacted the band with more than four weeks notice, it seems that he would have been fully entitled to cancel the band.

He would be helped in this case by the fact that he was an individual and not a venue. Unless you have some case law to back something else up.

Nonetheless, he was morally wrong to do it the way he did it.



You don't think six weeks is long enough? Well did a quick check

<URL SNIP>
<WEDDING BAND 1> allow you to cancel with more than 14 days notice and only forfeit your deposit.

who_me

Good info Godge. Still, it may be settled law, but it needs to be known law! Not many lay-people would know of the above.

Hence the benefit of spelling this out when the booking was made. Having a contract (even one not written by a solicitor) would have protected both parties. Things could easily have gone the other way, with the band cancelling a couple of weeks notice before a wedding. I wonder how a couple would take that.

BenEadir

Godge wrote: »

http://www.hayes-solicitors.ie/news%5CContractTermination.htm


https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2013/uk/reasonable-notice-to-terminate-and-good-faith

It is now settled law that there is an implied clause to cancel a contract with reasonable notice.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/80262/Contract+Law/What+Constitutes+Reasonable+Notice+To+Terminate

there are plenty more examples on the web that consider reasonable notice and confirm that it is an implied term of unwritten and not fully written contracts.

In this case, we don't have any information on what a wedding band would constitute reasonable notice.

However, if you go back through the thread, the OP mentions at one stage that in all other cases of things he had booked for his wedding, cancellation with more than 28 days could occur without penalty (other than forfeit of the deposit). If he is right about that, and if he can prove he contacted the band with more than four weeks notice, it seems that he would have been fully entitled to cancel the band.

He would be helped in this case by the fact that he was an individual and not a venue. Unless you have some case law to back something else up.

Nonetheless, he was morally wrong to do it the way he did it.



You don't think six weeks is long enough? Well did a quick check

<URL SNIP>
<WEDDING BAND 1> allow you to cancel with more than 14 days notice and only forfeit your deposit.

You're a breath of fresh air here Godge, welcome to the asylum

I'll have a read through your links and revert with anything I find issue with.

goz83

Godge wrote: »

<URL SNIP>
<WEDDING BAND 1> allow you to cancel with more than 14 days notice and only forfeit your deposit.

Different bands will have different allowable notice periods. Some will be in high demand and could fill a cancellation with 2 weeks notice. Others would not be in high demand and would need more notice, or be out of work for the booked date.

BenEadir

Godge wrote: »

In this case, we don't have any information on what a wedding band would constitute reasonable notice.

However, if you go back through the thread, the OP mentions at one stage that in all other cases of things he had booked for his wedding, cancellation with more than 28 days could occur without penalty (other than forfeit of the deposit). If he is right about that, and if he can prove he contacted the band with more than four weeks notice, it seems that he would have been fully entitled to cancel the band.

He would be helped in this case by the fact that he was an individual and not a venue. Unless you have some case law to back something else up.

Nonetheless, he was morally wrong to do it the way he did it.

You don't think six weeks is long enough? Well did a quick check

<URL SNIP>
<WEDDING BAND 1> allow you to cancel with more than 14 days notice and only forfeit your deposit.

Congratulations Godge, an excellent contribution to the thread. the main thing I have learned which I am happy to change my mind on is that where a verbal or written agreement is silent on the specifics of cancellation a "reasonable" cancellation can be invoked by either party with "reasonable" being a moving target dependent on the individual circumstances of the contracting parties, normal practice in the industry, how long it would take to replace the lost business etc.

You point to 28 days as being a commonly accepted notice period for other vendors the OP dealt with. I can see this being acceptable to suit hire or florists etc but the normal booking period for a wedding band seems to be a year before the wedding so getting notice 28 days prior to the event doesn't seem to me to give the band adequate time to replace the lost business. I accept that <WEDDING BAND 1> (who look like a serious professional outfit) permit their clients to cancel with 14 days notice on forfeiture of the deposit and they don't seek any other compensation but I wonder is that normal industry practice? It seems very generous to me (stupid really but I'm trying to be polite) and not something most bands would offer as it leaves them open to people cancelling for trivial reasons. What chance would they have of securing another gig with 14 days notice???

If I was the OP (who I assume is following this thread) I'd use the excellent research you did you drop the band an email pointing out the implied cancellation clause precedent, link to <WEDDING BAND 1> T&C's and say that having listened to his team of advisors (all of us here on Boards :P ) he is now of the view that the 6 weeks notice he gave them absolves him of any legal obligation to pay them anything but that he is still prepared to honour his offer of compensation as he knows his actions were foolish and leaves them out of pocket (that's the nice bit) but what he has offered is his "best and final offer" and if they don't write back to him accepting same within 24 hours he will withdraw his offer all together and they can sing for their supper (pun fully intended )

I love Boards!!!

md23040

BenThere wrote: »

Seriously? Much as I'm happy to contribute the benefit of my experience to the OP and this thread in general I'm not going to trawl through court records/publications to prove my point.

Then you have proven nothing, nada. That’s such a dead easy opt out – could not be bothered, sort of do not test my prowess or whatever. However, your post is simply conjecture and hyperbole without any sort substantiation or precedents from case law (no matter how thinly similar). If you could find something you would be all over the thread with some sort of evidence.

Also to illustrate a similair point on a grander scale than the OP's from my POV - before Christmas I bought at house from a receiver through an estate agent in which the highest bid to noon on Friday the 29th of November would the winner, and mine was accepted. Prior to this a survey had been undertaken by me at considerable cost, and after deadline, emails were sent to me from the Estate Agents confirming my securing of the sale and a 10% deposit was fund transferred to their client account, which is standard practise.

To cut a long story short, after Christmas the 10% deposit was refunded back to me and the bank decided instead to sell a portfolio of properties with this included to another financial institution at a serious mark down, without any redress to me.

After consultation with the two different solicitors, the advice was it would be a waste of money pursuing the receiver/bank/ agency as neither party had exchanged signed contracts. So if that is the advice on this issue in which 1000’s was paid over (and then mostly returned), then I cannot see the OP's having to pay for a service that was never given.

But then again stranger things have been known to happen in court and pigs soon might fly. Btw the bank in question no longer trades in Ireland and operates outside the jurisdiction.

BenEadir

md23040 wrote: »

Then you have proven nothing, nada.

I'm sorry to hear you were messed around like that but I bet the terms of the auction included a clause stating nothing was binding until contracts were exchanged and the seller reserved the right to not complete which unfortunately for you is what they did. It's poor behaviour on their part messing you around like that but that was a risk you took.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm giving my opinion. If I was being paid to prove it I'd happily accept that challenge.

Dietsquirt

2 weeks before your wedding you've more important things to be worrying about OP, f*ck them.

They're fault for only asking for 50 quid.

davo10

Dietsquirt wrote: »

2 weeks before your wedding you've more important things to be worrying about OP, f*ck them.

They're fault for only asking for 50 quid.

I wonder would they turn up on the day looking for their money, they know the date and the venue don't they?

Molester Stallone

davo10 wrote: »

I wonder would they turn up on the day looking for their money, they know the date and the venue don't they?

Wouldnt happen. It would completely backfire on the band

davo10

Molester Stallone wrote: »

Wouldnt happen. It would completely backfire on the band

They don't seem to have shown good judgement so far and what have they got to lose? They might feel they have no chance of getting their money so they might as well cause a nuisance. All depends really on how pissed off they are with OP.

muffler

davo10 wrote: »

I wonder would they turn up on the day looking for their money, they know the date and the venue don't they?

I dont think the OP would thank you for the scaremongering.

They are dealing with it so can we not leave it at that?

Kenny Logins

clint_silver wrote: »

To the OP, would you mind if your boss just took 200e out of your wages and when you questioned him, he said "ah sure you get paid enough anyway". That just what youve done to this band. "I tried to tell you a few weeks ago about it" just doesnt change what youve done.

Yeah, because that's exactly the same. :pac:

BenEadir

OP, based on all the discussion to date, the excellent contribution of Godge who identified precedent for implied reasonable notice period for cancellation, the terms of cancellation offered by<WEDDING BAND 1> who are a professional wedding outfit and the poor way the band you hired have dealt with you from the beginning particularly in relation to the low deposit, no written contract and how they communicated with you since you tried to cancel them and finally in view of the fact that you want all this behind you ASAP so you can get on and enjoy your wedding I strongly suggest you pick a figure you believe is fair compensation to the band for messing them around, write them the sort of letter I suggested and include a cheque for the chosen amount which they can only cash if they accept it as "full and final settlement of all outstanding matters between you", send it registered post and forget about it.

You'll never hear from them again.

Have a great wedding day and look on the bright side, if for any reason the new band get arrested the day before and won't make bail in time to do your wedding you know the phone number of a band who are free the night of your wedding and who know where to go to play

Time to get my get I think

davo10

muffler wrote: »

I dont think the OP would thank you for the scaremongering.

They are dealing with it so can we not leave it at that?

Hey I'm not scaremongering, on the one hand we have the OP who booked a band for a particular date and venue and who has now cancelled, on the other the band who feel they have been stiffed. It would be on my mind if it was me that if they were annoyed enough they could turn up at the venue on that date looking to either get the money they feel they are owed or to make as much of a nuisance as possible. Never underestimate how pissed off some people can get.

marienbad

davo10 wrote: »

Hey I'm not scaremongering, on the one hand we have the OP who booked a band for a particular date and venue and who has now cancelled, on the other the band who feel they have been stiffed. It would be on my mind if it was me that if they were annoyed enough they could turn up at the venue on that date looking to either get the money they feel they are owed or to make as much of a nuisance as possible. Never underestimate how pissed off some people can get.

That what the Gardaí are for, idle threat. Or even worse Revenue