Entitlement to deposit back

paddy19

Dav010 wrote: »

Which part of that link to legislation deals with when the consumer cancels even though the trader can deliver the service ordered on time?

Again, under Irish consumer law, there is no obligation on the trader to refund a deposit when the consumer cancels. In this case, the op cancelled because the venue isn’t open. That is not an onerous or unfair condition of the contract. The provision of the venue is not a condition of the service being provided by the band.

You should also be aware that EU directive/laws are up to each country to adopt into their own consumer laws, many were not adopted by Ireland because our consumer laws were considered to offer more protection. The CCPC, the independent statutory body states that traders are not obligated to return deposits, especially as in this case that the trader is not the one responsible for the cancellation.

I am well aware of Irish and EU law.

Most good lawyers I know are rarely as definite as you seem to be in a complex cases.

This is a mess because the band did bother to set out the terms and conditions in a simple written contract.
In my experience judges don't take kindly to professional suppliers
wasting the courts time when a simple contract would have eliminated the problem.
But it obviously, as always, depends on the judge on the day.

With ref to CCPC: This not a case the couple paid a deposit on an item and now have decided that they don't want it.
They would fulfil the contract if they could.

So where it is not clear a judge would normally be guided by Irish and EU law.
A contract that is unfair under EU guidelines by forfeit of the deposit
but no balancing forfeit in the contract if the band failed to turn up is not good for the band's case.

How would it go in SCC nobody's knows, but I would advise the band to give back the deposit and stop acting the maggot!

A band who gets it's name in the local paper for refusing to give a couple back their deposit doesn't
exactly gel with the sort of people who you would want at your happy event.

Dav010

paddy19 wrote: »

I am well aware of Irish and EU law.

Most good lawyers I know are rarely as definite as you seem to be in a complex cases.

This is a mess because the band did bother to set out the terms and conditions in a simple written contract.
In my experience judges don't take kindly to professional suppliers
wasting the courts time when a simple contract would have eliminated the problem.
But it obviously, as always, depends on the judge on the day.

With ref to CCPC: This not a case the couple paid a deposit on an item and now have decided that they don't want it.
They would fulfil the contract if they could.

So where it is not clear a judge would normally be guided by Irish and EU law.
A contract that is unfair under EU guidelines by forfeit of the deposit
but no balancing forfeit in the contract if the band failed to turn up is not good for the band's case.

How would it go in SCC nobody's knows, but I would advise the band to give back the deposit and stop acting the maggot!

A band who gets it's name in the local paper for refusing to give a couple back their deposit doesn't
exactly gel with the sort of people who you would want at your happy event.

This isn’t a complex case though. The band agreed to play at a venue specified by the op on a certain date. The op can’t now provide the venue.

And I suspect a lot of cases up in from of the SCC are for transactions where their isn’t a written contract. The op said there was a booking form which the op signed and agreed to the clause about the deposit.

The rest of your post I agree with, it’s bad form and potentially bad publicity.

Darc19

paddy19 wrote: »

I am well aware of Irish and EU law.

Most good lawyers I know are rarely as definite as you seem to be in a complex cases.

This is a mess because the band did bother to set out the terms and conditions in a simple written contract.
In my experience judges don't take kindly to professional suppliers
wasting the courts time when a simple contract would have eliminated the problem.
But it obviously, as always, depends on the judge on the day.

With ref to CCPC: This not a case the couple paid a deposit on an item and now have decided that they don't want it.
They would fulfil the contract if they could.

So where it is not clear a judge would normally be guided by Irish and EU law.
A contract that is unfair under EU guidelines by forfeit of the deposit
but no balancing forfeit in the contract if the band failed to turn up is not good for the band's case.

How would it go in SCC nobody's knows, but I would advise the band to give back the deposit and stop acting the maggot!

A band who gets it's name in the local paper for refusing to give a couple back their deposit doesn't
exactly gel with the sort of people who you would want at your happy event.

Complex case???

Seriously!????

It's as simple as they come.

Band booked. Person cancels as venue no longer available.

Band willing to play alternative date if available, but date not available.

Band keeps deposit as band has not reneged on any contract. Written or verbal.


I suspect that you know very very little about the legalities of simple contracts.

dubrov

Darc19 wrote:

I suspect that you know very very little about the legalities of simple contracts.

Based on the rest of your post, I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

Would you care to reference anything that remotely backs it up?

Darc19

dubrov wrote: »

Based on the rest of your post, I think it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

Would you care to reference anything that remotely backs it up?

Band was booked.

Deposit paid

Person who booked canceled.

Simple. Very simple.

StupidLikeAFox

Darc19 wrote: »

Band was booked.

Deposit paid

Person who booked canceled.

Simple. Very simple.

The event was called off on foot of government orders though. That wasn't in the control of either band or the OP

Dav010

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

The event was called off on foot of government orders though. That wasn't in the control of either band or the OP

It was never in the Band’s control in the first place.

Cupatae

Darc19 wrote: »

Band was booked.

Deposit paid

Person who booked canceled.

Simple. Very simple.

You d see how simple it was if you went to court, Id strongly encourage the OP to follow it up as they imo would win it, again whats the band keeping the 500 euro for? to cover what?

At the very least i hope the band is named and shamed on facebook or other places.. disgraceful behavior imo.

paddy19

Darc19 wrote: »

Band was booked.

Deposit paid

Person who booked canceled.

Simple. Very simple.

If it was simple it probably would never have arisen.

twowheelsonly

Darc19 wrote: »

They have done nothing wrong. Morally they could have done better.

But if you name and shame them you leave yourself open to very expensive defamation actions.

On such actions, the legal costs are in the region of €20,000+

Not advisable in the slightest.

There's no defamation in statement of facts so there will be no defamation action.


Supposedly this band are very popular - so popular in fact that they have very few weekends free next year.
That would imply that they are also very busy this year, or would have been except for the current circumstances.
That would further imply that they have had a lot more cancellations than this one. The big question is have they retained all the deposits ? Obviously they'll be able to fulfil some of those bookings at a later date but I'd imagine that there's a fair chunk that they can't do. If they're that busy and popular they could easily have 15 weddings booked between now and the end of July - and that's a low estimate.

Are people really arguing that they should be allowed to keep all of those deposits ? Any musicians that I know have just had to suck it up - same as hundreds of others in other industries.

I would be leaving level headed reviews everywhere and anywhere, strictly factual of course. People simply don't like that behaviour, regardless of who is 'legally right' (which is actually quite unclear here ) Leave reviews all over the place , just to shake the bushes as much as anything else and see how many more similar cases pop up. No harm in putting it out there - reviews are for the good of all.

Dav010

twowheelsonly wrote: »

There's no defamation in statement of facts so there will be no defamation action.


Supposedly this band are very popular - so popular in fact that they have very few weekends free next year.
That would imply that they are also very busy this year, or would have been except for the current circumstances.
That would further imply that they have had a lot more cancellations than this one. The big question is have they retained all the deposits ? Obviously they'll be able to fulfil some of those bookings at a later date but I'd imagine that there's a fair chunk that they can't do. If they're that busy and popular they could easily have 15 weddings booked between now and the end of July - and that's a low estimate.

Are people really arguing that they should be allowed to keep all of those deposits ? Any musicians that I know have just had to suck it up - same as hundreds of others in other industries.

I would be leaving level headed reviews everywhere and anywhere, strictly factual of course. People simply don't like that behaviour, regardless of who is 'legally right' (which is actually quite unclear here ) Leave reviews all over the place , just to shake the bushes as much as anything else and see how many more similar cases pop up. No harm in putting it out there - reviews are for the good of all.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the band should keep the deposit, but it is important firstly to understand what a deposit is, and secondly that there is no entitlement to a refund of a deposit. As has been pointed out, God knows how many times now, the op has cancelled, not the band, because the op can’t provide a venue.

Cupatae

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the band should keep the deposit, but it is important firstly to understand what a deposit is, and secondly that there is no entitlement to a refund of a deposit. As has been pointed out, God knows how many times now, the op has cancelled, not the band, because the op can’t provide a venue.

Are you part of the band in question? You seem to have a real vested interest in trying to shift blame/doubt to the OP.

Dav010

Cupatae wrote: »

Are you part of the band in question? You seem to have a real vested interest in trying to shift blame/doubt to the OP.

Of course I must be a part of the band. D’oh.

Or, I could just know how deposits are meant to be used. When a consumer books a service with a non refundable deposit, then cancels, the trader is not obligated to return the deposit.

Cupatae

Dav010 wrote: »

Of course I must be a part of the band. D’oh.

Seems so... So far you ve state, the op has 0 chance to win so dont go to court, dont leave any negative reviews as they ll have to pay 20k + ? for defamation ect.. which is all nonsense.

Dav010

Cupatae wrote: »

Seems so... So far you ve state, the op has 0 chance to win so dont go to court, dont leave any negative reviews as they ll have to pay 20k + ? for defamation ect.. which is all nonsense.

I never mentioned anything about defamation, that was other posters. As long as the review is truthful and includes that they knew the deposit was non-refundable when booking, review away. I have stated all along that I think the band should refund the money. But you seem to be sure the band are in the wrong here, they aren’t, no matter how you cut it, the consumer cancelled the booking and the band were not providing the venue.

dubrov

Hotel cancelling due to government directive does not equal customer cancellation.

Dav010

dubrov wrote: »

Hotel cancelling due to government directive does not equal customer cancellation.

Consumer cancelling because venue closed does. The band are still available to play, and have offered other dates, they just don’t suit the op.

Triangle

Dav010 wrote: »

Of course I must be a part of the band. D’oh.

Or, I could just know how deposits are meant to be used. When a consumer books a service with a non refundable deposit, then cancels, the trader is not obligated to return the deposit.

Irrespective of law, weddings are an expensive thing to do, holding onto a deposit when the band haven't had any expenses and when the cancellation is not the fault of the couple - shows a lack of morality and a good sense of entitlement imo.

Dav010

Triangle wrote: »

Irrespective of law, weddings are an expensive thing to do, holding onto a deposit when the band haven't had any expenses and when the cancellation is not the fault of the couple - shows a lack of morality and a good sense of entitlement imo.

I totally agree. But the same could be argued when any trader holds on to a deposit when an order/service is cancelled by the consumer. That is the way deposits work though.

It’s certainly worth spending €25 to find out where the op stands, but the fact that the op agreed to the deposit being non refundable will work against him/her.

KeithTS

Triangle wrote: »

Irrespective of law, weddings are an expensive thing to do, holding onto a deposit when the band haven't had any expenses and when the cancellation is not the fault of the couple - shows a lack of morality and a good sense of entitlement imo.

How do you know that they've had no expenses?
Wedding bands advertise, can have management fees, may have set up a gig for the couple to see them perform or previously made videos of their performances etc. How were the band found, were the listed in a directory that might have fees etc? It's not as if the band are making loads of money by hanging on to the deposit after they split it 4/5 ways.

Despite people thinking being in a band is a haphazard nixer where you just get a gang together and bash out a few tunes it takes a lot more than that. Perhaps the couple requested some songs not on their usual setlist and the band spent time learning/rehearsing these?

I'm in no way affiliated with any bands at the moment, I'm just making an observation that just because they didn't perform on this date doesn't mean they haven't any costs to cover.

twowheelsonly

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the band should keep the deposit, but it is important firstly to understand what a deposit is, and secondly that there is no entitlement to a refund of a deposit. As has been pointed out, God knows how many times now, the op has cancelled, not the band, because the op can’t provide a venue.

I completely understand how deposits work / are supposed to work but these are extraordinary times and extraordinary solutions are called for.

Dav010 wrote: »

Consumer cancelling because venue closed does. The band are still available to play, and have offered other dates, they just don’t suit the op.

It could also be argued that the OP has provided an alternative date, not his problem that it doesn't suit the band.


As I questioned in my earlier post, how many times has the band done this ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 ? That's a lot of disgruntled customers and shows a level of greed and 'couldn't give a flock' towards those clients and other potential clients.
I've heard of plenty of other wedding suppliers giving leeway in these times - Hotels, photographers and videographers, other bands, florists and so forth. Plenty of clients singing their praises as well for being so helpful so no harm to out the ones that have been the polar opposite.

Dav010

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I completely understand how deposits work / are supposed to work but these are extraordinary times and extraordinary solutions are called for.



It could also be argued that the OP has provided an alternative date, not his problem that it doesn't suit the band.


As I questioned in my earlier post, how many times has the band done this ? 10 ? 15 ? 20 ? That's a lot of disgruntled customers and shows a level of greed and 'couldn't give a flock' towards those clients and other potential clients.
I've heard of plenty of other wedding suppliers giving leeway in these times - Hotels, photographers and videographers, other bands, florists and so forth. Plenty of clients singing their praises as well for being so helpful so no harm to out the ones that have been the polar opposite.

Extraordinary times no doubt, and the band should take that into account and return the deposit, but while the Government has legislated for other sectors such as rentals and healthcare, it hasn’t for the Sale of Goods and Services during Covid. If you look at the links posted earlier by another poster to the CCPC site relating to deposits, it says that if the vendor delays and a new date can’t be agreed, then you are entitled to your money back, but in this case the band isn’t delaying, if none of the dates suit the band, that is not the band’s fault as they are not the ones cancelling. Contracts of service, verbal or written protect both sides, not just the consumer.

You are probably right, there are other disgruntled couples, maybe this band is so popular they can suck up some bad press. The op will know if they are popular.

Cupatae

Dav010 wrote: »

Extraordinary times no doubt, and the band should take that into account and return the deposit, but while the Government has legislated for other sectors such as rentals and healthcare, it hasn’t for the Sale of Goods and Services during Covid. If you look at the links posted earlier by another poster to the CCPC site relating to deposits, it says that if the vendor delays and a new date can’t be agreed, then you are entitled to your money back, but in this case the band isn’t delaying, if none of the dates suit the band, that is not the band’s fault as they are not the ones cancelling. Contracts of service, verbal or written protect both sides, not just the consumer.

You are probably right, there are other disgruntled couples, maybe this band is so popular they can suck up some bad press. The op will know if they are popular.

I just hope it gets well known..this is the carry on of the band, id imagine it would turn out to be a very expensive 500 euro sleezely pocketed, no matter how you dress it up with "law" and other nonsense. they took 500 euro for something that was out of the control of the customer.

Wouldn't take a Marketing genius to know this is a scumbag move and alot of people would avoid people like this, regardless of what stipulations in the law they use to justify it.

L1011

Thread ran its course some time ago, figure out a way to take your circular arguments to PM if you wish.