The bride wants her deposit back

[jonathan_james]

Hi Laura. I'm an English lawyer. Contract is usually pretty similar the world over and generally follows a standard pattern. A contract is formed when one party makes an offer to the other party (e.g. I shall photograph your wedding on the [date] if you pay me $1,000) and the other party accepts. The offer and acceptance can be verbal or written.<p>

Once a binding contract is formed, both parties are legally bound to go through with it. If one party, in this case the bride, breaches the contract, ("I don't want you any more. I won't pay you the $1,000") the other is entitled to damages. For the photographer, this means the loss of profit on the job (NOT the full price, as this includes expenses which the photographer isn't going to have to pay now).<p>

Your deposit should represent no more than the profit you would make on the job. If this is the case, the deposit can be withheld because you would otherwise have the right to sue the bride for loss of profit which would involve the bride in greater loss.<p>

There is a duty by the innocent party to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss - i.e. by trying to book a replacement job in the time now freed up. However, if this is not possible, you are entitled to your loss of profit as a matter of law.<p>

Underpinning this is the point, raised by others, that you still have to prove your version of events, and this is a great deal easier if it is all evidenced in writing.<p>

There isn't anything at all unfair about this. The bride also gets the protection of the contract. If you were to cancel and not turn up, the bride would be entitled to the difference between your charges and the charges of a replacement photographer if more expensive, provided that the bride had taken reasonable steps to get a photographer at the best possible price, you would have to pay up.

[zave_shapiro]

Jonathan is talking my language! A contract is a contract (unless it's about chattel property, which can only be written). The problem, as so eloquently expressed by Sam Goldwyn, was that a verbal contract wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Others have advised you to give it up. I'll be a bit more pugnacious and say that you can do as you want: to refund or not is a public relations issue, an ethical issue, a business issue; legally you will suffer no penalty hanging on to the money. Small claims courts in particular are charged with the obligation of being realistic; a $300 payment would be seen as a clear meeting-of-the-minds on wanting to lock you in to that date, even if she hadn't yet picked packages and other options. Some contracts are legitimately negotiated in stages.

 

If it's a good idea to refund the money to avoid her wrath, to avoid a PR problem or to clear your own conscience then do it. But in terms of the law backing her demand then she's SOL.