Is this a fair contract / where do I stand?

[HJG]

Hello all

Extract from the contract for a wedding photographer shown below. Replace the red blanks with 'The Supplier'.
Wedding was going to be this year.
We asked if we could move to 2022.
Photographer said they are no longer in the business of doing wedding photography so said unfortunately they cannot provide us with the service.

The deposit was 40% and this clause makes it seem unlikely I will get this money back. Seems a bit unfair to me, but I will accept that the contract was signed so perhaps I have no grounds. But with this wording what is stopping the photographer taking 1000 bookings and getting 1000 deposits and then pulling out of all of them and keeping all that money?

Thanks in advance.

[Ussrcossack]

Is be asking him for return of all money.
Then telling him to return it if not forth coming

I expect it's not a small amount

[QuickQuack]

Is there a clause about the deposit itself? What about your right to amend or withdraw? That clause only seems to deal with the supplier's right to withdraw.

[mmm-five]

Surely you haven't withdrawn from the contract - possibly asked for a change in terms - and you still want the service?

It's the supplier who's withdrawing as they've obviously decided the business is not viable during COVID, so you should be able to recover the deposit.

Getting the money back may be more of an issue though if they're no longer in business.

[SydneyBridge]

The change of year makes no difference, if they were unable to provide the service this year.

[vaud]

IANAL

They have changed the service terms and scope of what they are willing to provide, so I suggest they should return the deposit as they are no longer willing to provide the service that they contracted to provide. Breach is on their side.

Again, IANAL.

[SydneyBridge]

Yes, from the terms you have provided, they have broken the contract and should refund.

Are they an individual or registered company? Getting any money may prove tricky

[HJG]

Thanks all. The part that is getting me concerned is that the clause above allows them to withdraw and keep the deposit.
Verbally over the phone they have agreed to return it but now struggling with contact and then saw this in the contract.... d'oh !!

[vaud]

A polite “letter before action” with 14 days to respond may generate a reaction.

Reality is that they may not have the cash and it’s not worth actually taking action against those without funds, so pragmatism and phased repayments might get you more.

[anonymous-user]

Where's Breadvan? He's usually good with this stuff.

[kestral]

"Photographer said they are no longer in the business of doing wedding photography so said unfortunately they cannot provide us with the service"

So they need to refund all your money.

The issue of change of date is irrelevant as they are no longer in business.

[Spleen]

Ussrcossack said:

Is be asking him for return of all money.
Then telling him to return it if not forth coming

I expect it's not a small amount

Just so I get this straight, you're saying he should ask him to return the money and if he doesn't he should ask him to return it again?

That makes a truckload of sense.

[InitialDave]

Spleen said:

Just so I get this straight, you're saying he should ask him to return the money and if he doesn't he should ask him to return it again?

That makes a truckload of sense.

No, he said ask him, and if he doesn't, tell him.

i.e. Be polite first time.

[Gary C]

kestral said:

The issue of change of date is irrelevant as they are no longer in business.

Isn't it ?

So the OP wants to cancel on the date originally contracted and wants to move to next year.

So they are claiming the OP has changed the terms possibly ?

Are they saying they wouldn't even provide the service this year ? if so, say you want it this year after all and let them cancel maybe ?

[Flibby]

If the supplier no longer works as a wedding photographer then there is no intent by him to honour the contract.

I think you'll likely have a contract term that you've missed re the deposit. In any event, the photographer ceasing to work in the field is enough to sue for anticipatory breach of contract if necessary as it's clear there's no intent for him to honour your bargain.

[Projectblue51]

Flibby said:

If the supplier no longer works as a wedding photographer then there is no intent by him to honour the contract.

I think you'll likely have a contract term that you've missed re the deposit. In any event, the photographer ceasing to work in the field is enough to sue for anticipatory breach of contract if necessary as it's clear there's no intent for him to honour your bargain.

This, plus a few of the others. Don't worry, you will get your money. You are fully entitled to your money. They have done no work on your behalf, and have even told you they don't intend to. There is absolutely no way they can hold on to it, and any clause that they state allows them to would be classed as unfair terms.

Have a read of this: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...

[Rozzers]

I read this from the perspective that you want to move the date by a year, so the photographer may be within their rights.

[vaud]

Rozzers said:

I read this from the perspective that you want to move the date by a year, so the photographer may be within their rights.

But hey have stated they will be unable to fulfil the contract regardless of date?

[Gweeds]

I'm a wedding photographer and from my perspective that would be a straight refund of your deposit. Regardless of the date change (and we've all be doing masses of those this last 12 months, and still are) he can no longer provide the service he was contracted for.

[SydneyBridge]

All depends whether he/she actually has the money

They also should have told you as soon as they knew they could not fulfill the contract