Not the best way to handle a refund request
- Thread starter Scott Hanna
- Start date
Oh man, didn't even think about that nifty little wrinkle. So bride (or her family) pays the deposit (typical situation). She dies, then the fiance is requesting a refund to him? Seems like this videographer probably had a LOT of plausible outs on this one, all without starting a net fight.
This is a good point.
Let's take Bernie Madoff for example. Some of his client's paid only $10M or $30M to get in the market - as if... anyone could really work with that.
What the hell were they thinking ?
We wouldn't be reading this story if there were decent individuals involved.
The videographer clearly appears to be a complete idiot and the surviving fiance' is also an antagonist.
Irrelevant, because her rights are retained by her estate.
The expression "you can't take it with you" owes to our legal system not religion. Surely, no matter what your faith, you've noticed God's interest in your money ?
Can't agree with that because I believe he has a legal right to all or some of the money being returned. Thus, if preserving his rights requires him to take the gloves off - I'm okay with that.
There's an important lesson here for every wedding vendor that applies regardless of whether you're dealing with a righteous customer or relentless antagonist:
Be damn sure you know the difference between your rights and your posture before you fire that first volley.
Last edited:
He may very well be. I am of the opinion that the contractee should be given a full refund as a gesture of compassion and fairness.
I see no evidence that the surviving fiance' is the contractee.
Regardless,
Step one after a contractual conflict arises and the parties cannot agree to terms for settlement of the conflict is either legally binding mediation of judicial redress. These are precisely the sort of conflicts that small claims courts were created to address and for far less cost than District Courts. In the present circumstance, I see no reference that any legal pleadings were filed.
In addition , I see no assertion by the fiance' claiming his legal rights were infringed. He states he "feels" he should get the refund, as do I and as would most decent professionals, but he makes no legal claim of any right, contractual or legal, to said refund.
His feelings, a/k/a opinions are not part of the contract. When you contract with an asshole, don't expect compassion and fairness.
However, I do see evidence of libelous behavior, which should be avoided regardless of the causation, even preserving rights. Online statements can reach the level of libel for the author and cost substantially more that the amount in initial dispute.
Becoming an online asshole also isn't the most intelligent, responsible or fair way to seek redress because it typically results in exactly what has developed in this circumstance.
Never wrestle with a pig in his sty. You'll both get covered in pig shit but the pig enjoys it.
Last edited:
I'd say there's actually another rule, that supercedes yours above............."It's always about the money". When caught in a situation like this, whether to cave to the client's demands or stand my ground, I calculate which decision puts the most money in my own pocket. If the risk from standing my ground is going to cost me more in the long run, give the money back. At the very least, when you get that initial request for a refund, NEVER come off as a hardball. Always temper your replies with sugar and sincerity. Once you can fake that sh%t, you got it made.
None of what you included in that post has merit, because the signature is of no legal impart with respect to disposition of the funds.
The bride's estate survives as a legal entity, and the undelivered product is clearly defined. It's entirely possible that neither of them signed the contract and that the deposit was actually paid by some other relative on their behalf.
It won't matter if the entire booking was a gift. The legal liability for the vendor still remains.
Whatever you perceive to be bad behavior in the wake of this dispute would not change the liabilities in the contract. It won't be addressed unless filed as independent actions and subsequently allowed and enjoined by a judge. You can't simply show up in court and start adding complaints to the basket as if you were grocery shopping. If it's not on the docket - you don't get to talk about it.
Likewise, if the vendor is entitle to keep the deposit then he would not lose that right for having been an a*hole about it. The groom would have to file a complaint addressing those specific behaviors and any applicable law before a court would listen to any of it.
Last edited:
That's more of a personal statement.
There's a lot of us for whom it's very much not always about the money.
Who said anything about signatures?
Only a party to the contract has any standing for any relief from said contract.
If he isn't named or a signatory, and she dies intestate (without a Last Will & Testament) he likley isn't a surviving member of her estate and therefore, not entitled to any disposition of funds.
In CO, when a person dies intestate, with parents but no spouse or descendants, parents inherit everything.
Since there is no evidence of any legal action being filed, your argument is inconsequential.
For the sake of discussion, if fiance' had any standing and filed suit, the douchbag vendor can still make counter/cross claims that are directly related to the allegations/claims in the petition/complaint and have all matters addressed by the same court.
Last edited:
Right now we don't have all the information in this situation to judge who is the person that should be or have gotten a refund. All I know is that vendor shouldn't have hesitated in giving a refund. They decided to do what they did. I just know who is watching and they don't miss seeing a thing. So when he decides to give that person their justice it will happen. For sure it will be payback for them not doing what they know what they should have done.
Simply not true.
The bride's death does not change the matter of the contract - it changes the balance of equity and consideration, and that issue remains actionable.
The vendor has already acknowledged the groom to be a party to the agreement both in word and action, so all other speculation is for not.
I not only predict legal action to be filed but, my money is on the groom getting free legal help as well. Once the story made the television news it became a public relations product for legal aide. Free advertising for whoever steps up.
For the sake of discussion, if it has stripes it's a zebra, no stripes it's probably a horse.
The burden of proof is on the vendor because he isn't simply holding a date. If the down payment is substantial (50% or more), and no work has been performed, then the lack of that material product becomes an issue that can easily pierce the claim for liquidated damages.
The deposit and any alleged 'defamation' are separate issues, they would be addressed in two separate actions. Even if the two cases were enjoined (requires consent of both parties or the order of a judge) it is more likely any defamation claim would be thrown out. Courts prefer to address the issue at cause and not wade into the subsequent mud of bad personalities gone wild.
With respect to THIS vendor: Bad reviews are not defamation when the review results from an actual business relationship. A vendor soliciting online reviews who then retaliates in the wake of a negative review can easily cross the line to defamation. Be careful what you wish for.
This case has repercussions for disc jockeys as well.
Would you prevail in court if you kept the money ?
Let's take the notion of Covid-19 itself as a circumstance beyond anyone's control off the table, and look specifically at what remains of the agreement that the court relies on with respect to: liquidated damages.
So, what say you ?
Would you prevail in court if you kept the money ?
Let's take the notion of Covid-19 itself as a circumstance beyond anyone's control off the table, and look specifically at what remains of the agreement that the court relies on with respect to: liquidated damages.
So, what say you ?
NO he has not. That isn't PURE speculation.
More speculative fodder.
My philosophy: Don’t be a d*ck. Do the right thing. It will help solve 99% of issues you encounter. The other 1%, let the lawyers handle.
