ruined film?

I took two rolls of film into my local one hour photo shop. When I

picked them up the man informed me that he had ruined my film. He

went on to say that he forgot that his machine did not take my type of

film. He offered me a free roll of film for his mistake.

 

I called the manager to let him know what happened. He researched it

and called me back, saying that the technician admitted he made a

terrible error. He offered me no compensation, saying he had to talk

to the general manager.

 

My question is this - do they have any liability or am I just out of

luck? These were priceless photos (aren't the all!). I am not a jerk

looking for a fight but I am pretty upset. Please advise!

You're out of luck. Their liability usually stops at not charging you for processing and getting you replacement film. This is not only true of minilabs, pro shops have similar policies. That's why pros shoot the same shotss with multiple cameras and have the rolls processed separately.

 

Out of curiosity, how did they screw up? Did you give them traditional B&W to be processed in C41?

This wasn't an "act of God", it was stupidy and negligence. I'd say you might well have a case if you wanted to bring one. Those liability disclaimers don't always stand up in court, but they're great to point to when they're trying to fob you off with a free roll of film.

A free roll of film and/or free processing are generally the standard remedies in these situations. This limit of liability was probably written in fine print on the slip you were given when you dropped off your film.

They made a mistake, it happens. While it really sucks to be on the end of the mistake, keep in mind that:

1) The operator probably feels like crap. When those kinds of mistakes are made, it ruins your day.

 

2) They were up front and honest. Some labs would have blamed you, or admitted no-fault.

 

3) They probably do have a disclaimer saying it's not their fault, even if they are negligent.

 

4) You get what you pay for. This doesn't necessarily mean money. If you spend time to get to know the regular staff at the lab, and make sure they know what you're dropping off (You should know what you're dropping off, too) this kind of thing would happen less, and you'd probably get better prints, because they'll learn how you like your photos printed.

 

It's a live and learn situation. Hard, but there's not much you can really do about it.

"<I>...do they have any liability or am I just out of luck? These were priceless photos</I>"<P>

Liability to do what - go out and retake the photos for you? What were they photos of that were so priceless that you would trust them to a 1 hour lab? What kind of film were you using?

'Liability to do what - go out and retake the photos for you?'

 

Liability to remunerate the expense of retaking those photos. Several years ago a UK

photographer (amateur, I believe) was paid thousands by a one-hour minilab (Boots)

after they destroyed the film he had shot on a trip to Antarctica. I think it was an

out-of-court settlement, and was paid in spite of the company's standard disclaimer

of liability.

 

I suggest you sleep on it, and if you're still raging in the morning contact a

solicitor.

I also recall an episode where the photographer messed up the photos. A judge ordered him to reconstruct the entire wedding, rent the tuxedos, flowers, pay travel and hotel expenses for memebers of the bridal party, etc.

There has been a case in the UK recently where an amateur shot film of the Grand Canyon, which was lost by the mail order lab. They claimed immunity under the standard contractual limited liability clause, but he did not accept this and started proceedings against them. The case was settled out of court the day before it would have started. Although the sum involved is secret, it is thought to have been something like a few thousand pounds. (He claimed for £5,000 but is likely to have settled for less.)

 

UK law has the concept of unfair contractual conditions, which means that even if it's in the contract, it can be ruled out by the court if it is seen as sufficiently unreasonable. If the photo company had not settled out of court and the ruling had gone against them, it would have opened the door for lots of other similar compensation claims.

 

However, Amateur Photographer's lawyer commenting on the case mentioned that it is impossible to expect a lab handling thousands of rolls a year not to occasionally have an error, so it might well be reasonable for the lab to have a limited liability clause.

I can well understand a monetary settlement where there is money involved. It costs a pro money to do a reshoot and a loss of reputation, future bookings as well. If an amateur specifically goes to the Grand Canyon in order to fulfill his lifelong dream of taking photos there, he has a valid claim, in my opinion. But lost photos of a family gathering, while very disappointing, is not money out of anyone's pocket. Still, punative damages, or the threat of them, can keep photo labs a bit more on their toes. "It will cost us $5,000 in settlement damages if we lose a roll of film" is more effective than "It will cost us the price of a roll of film if we mess up."