MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I've put a deposit down on a holiday let in Cornwall so a group of mates could come down and have a relaxing activities weekend. Unfortunately things haven't gone quite to plan and I'm going to have to cancel the booking as quite a number have pulled out and we just can't fill the spots.
I emailed the owner this morning to inform him of the situation and the intention to cancel but he has come back to me explaining that I am obliged to pay in full now that the booking has been made regardless of whether we make use of the let or not. This is stated in the terms and conditions that he sent out with the booking but that was only after the deposit has already been paid and therefore the commitment made!
Does anyone know where I stand in regard to this? I can't afford to settle the balance on my own and it's not like I've asked for my (hefty) deposit back but I don't like the idea of being chased through the small claims court if I refuse to settle up.
Thanks in advance for any sage advice, there's not a lot that stresses me out but money matters certainly do!
How many weeks till the let?
Ask the owner to remarket it for the week you had booked. You should at worst only lose the deposit.
When is it for and where?
properlawyer will be along in a bit, but I was under the impression that if you didnt pay the balance, and the guy sued for completion of the contract he should endeavour to re-let the cottage and only make a claim if he has been financially disadvantaged. i.e. he cant sue for your payment as well as getting paid by someone else, and he cant just not try and mitigate his losses and count on you paying damages to make him whole again.
You didn't see the Terms & Conditions BEFORE you handed over money?
Er.....
If you weren't informed of the T&C's prior to booking (and you'll need to be sure that this is not the case- check the small print that you saw beforehand very carefully) then I can't see how you can be constrained by them.
I would try an 'appeal to reason' first- contact the seller and explain the circumstances. I would ensure that I had a copy of what I saw when I made the booking prior to doing this (it's very easy to update a website and then claim that the buyer's eyes were deceiving them.)
If that fails, does he have any CC details to extract payment from you? If not, I'd be telling him to go and jump.
Stoner's right - they have to mitigate. The further away the date, the greater the chance the guy has to re-let, so if the booked date is this weekend, he's got a fair claim to the full amount. More than a month away and I suggest you could cheerfully tell him to whistle.
Stoner has it - he is under a duty to re-market, if he sues you can force him to show that he did.
The contract terms overide this, they are likely to apply as you didn't respond when you got them.
The contract terms overide this
clarify?
can terms agreed override the principal of limits on remedies?
You should claim on your holiday insurance if you can't take the holdiday, otherwise your loss
As a final word, I'd just tell him it's unfortunate but just the way it is and wish him well re-letting it
There are just over six weeks left until the booking, it's in St. Agnes in Cornwall.
It's a lovely looking spot and I'd still like to go but I can't bankroll it on my own!
Cheers for all the advice, I'll go and see if I can appeal to the owner's better nature...
Stoner - Member
can terms agreed override the principal of limits on remedies?
i dunno...I meant to insert "may"...would it be caught be unfair contract terms? Freedom to contract vs. illegality of penalties hmmm
In any event, OP, I'd not pay a penny until the holiday is over and I'd write now advising the owner it's his duty to mitigate his loss. See what happens but be pleasant for now.
I think its just a doctrine that applies to the judges discretion in quantifying damages. Pretty sure you cant contract out of the expectation to mitigate your losses. It would be perverse to be able to - every contract would have such a clause and the doctrine would not exist in practice, when clearly it does.