Non Refundable €2,000 Deposit for a wedding dress

[Gordon Gekko]

Do we know that no issue was made when list was sent in and no dresses available?

Pugmister might be able to inform us of the dialogue that took place.

Marion

He made no issue of it in the previous posts. The basis for the refund is that she changed her mind.

The owner seems to be saying that they've incurred costs. Pugmister seems to be disputing that. His fiance asked them to ship over certain dresses for an appointment which they didn't do. They then did do it for the second appointment. So how were there cost incurred the first time?

All very odd.

 

[Marion]

I think the basis for the refund is that no dresses were available to try on despite the fact that a list had been sent after the deposit was paid initially.

Contract broken.

How long did it take for the dresses to appear in the shop so that she could try them on?

Doesn't matter.

Marion

 

[Gordon Gekko]

I think the basis for the refund is that no dresses were available to try on despite the fact that a list had been sent after the deposit was paid initially.

Contract broken.

How long did it take for the dresses to appear in the shop so that she could try them on?

Doesn't matter.

Marion

Not based on the information provided by the OP.

More of a reverse engineered argument to try and get out of a contract.

The contract was/is for a wedding dress at 15% discount, not a guarantee to have sample dresses in on a particular date.

 

[Marion]

I believe (from experiences of my nieces) that purchasing a wedding dress is quite a feat.

Appointments have to be made and samples are available to try on at the appointed time. You can't just turn up unannounced and try on dresses.

Let's see what the OP has to say about the dialogue that ensued when the samples/dresses were not available having made the appointment after they had sent in their list of dresses to be seen.


Otherwise, we are all surmising. People often don't tell the entire story in a post or indeed number of posts.



Marion

 

[Gordon Gekko]

I find this angle morally dubious to be honest.

You're essentially coaxing the OP into using an argument that you've invented in order to find a way out of this deposit issue.

 

[Marion]

You don't know me at all to suggest that this would be the case.

The OP is the person who knows the dialogue that took place together with the wedding dress salesperson.

the contract may well have been broken by the wedding dress company by non performance - failure to supply the dress/samples.

As I said, we are all surmising here until we know the details of the appointment date.

Marion

 

[moneybox]

How much was the dress going to cost? Am staggered at a €2,000 deposit for a dress!!

To demand a deposit like that, the dress must be costing the price of new car

 

[Marion]

I don't think it matters what the price of the dress is. (I drive a bog standard car)

I'm sure it is stunning. I already checked the website of the designer!

The legal argument is the issue.

Is the deposit owed to the consumer?

Marion

 

[Leo]

Is the deposit owed to the consumer?

That's the crux of it. The key to determining will be who has broken/ is seeking to break the contract agreed when the money was handed over.

The agreement reached and the subsequent timeline isn't 100% clear from the OPs contribution to date.

My reading of it is this (but I am making assumptions to get here, OP please correct me if I'm wrong in any of this):

From the first post, the OP/fiancee put down a 2k deposit to secure a discount off a future purchase. At the point of this transaction, no dress had been chosen, so the contract entered into wasn't for a specific dress, but for a 15% discount off a dress to be chosen at some point in the future.

There was an appointment made to view a selection of dresses, but none were available on the day. The law allows for delays, so this alone is not grounds for a refund unless it can be show that the delays involved were unreasonable.

Again, from the first post, the fiancee subsequently spotted another dress that she prefers, so now wants the deposit back. Change of mind is not a grounds for a refund.

For the deposit to be refundable, the shop would have to be shown as failing to deliver a dress from the chosen designer. Unless the agreement was more specific, any dress from that designer would see them as delivering on their commitment. Are they saying they are unable to fulfill their side of the agreement?

 

[Pugmister]

Apologies all, have been actively trying to amicably come to a resolution on this.

I will try to address all the comments made from the last update.

Dresses from this designer start at 9k and go upwards in price to staggering amounts. Our dress was at the lower end of the price spectrum.

We have an email from the the shop stating that the design house are only offering a chance to secure a discount by placing a deposit up until the January 2016. At this point dresses will be full price irrespective of whether a deposit is given or not.

After some googling I have found that this is a sales tactic used quite a bit by wedding dress shops. The discount is in fact being offered by the shop and not the design house. The design house prices do not change no matter what the circumstances are but by alluding to the fact the design house is offering the discount customers feel to need to secure it immediately.

My point of contention with this statement is that upon requesting the money back the shop has said we do not have to go ahead with the purchase from this designer and can pick a dress from any designer the shop stocks or even have a dress made for us by the shop themselves.

So who exactly was the money paid to, the shop or the design house ? Who is our contract with ? Who is giving us the discount ? Its not a lie to say that when my fiancee was sent the email she did feel immense pressure to commit at the fear of missing out on the gown.

Regarding, the mix ups when it come to the appointment. We did make a feelings known about this at the time. We were spending a considerable sum of money in this shop and when we went to the appointment the dresses requested were not available. My fiancee rang the shop owner at this point who agreed with us on this point. The next time we went to try on the requested dresses was at an appointment arranged by the shop, not one requested by us.

The way this works is the shop hold a trunk show 2 - 3 times a year and advertise these shows a few months in advance. Since these dresses are so expensive and couture pieces the shop does not hold readily available stock and instead schedules allotted times for customers during these week long trunk shows. You book you time slot in advance and outline the specific models you wish to see.

The time in which we got to try on the requested dresses was at the next appointment. How can the shop prove that no other brides to be did not try on the same dress during this time ? How can they prove no other brides also requested these dresses ? If they did then surely this means shipping costs are a fixed cost in holding a trunk show.

I hope this clarifies some of the points raised above.

 

[Pugmister]

Additionally when we first asked for our money back we were told by a member of staff that this money had been paid to the design house. If that is the case how can we now use the deposit to purchase a dress from any designer the Irish shop stocks ?

My fiancee has now seen a designer in the same shop which she likes and hopes to find a dress that we can use these funds against however doing this while the shop is holding our money makes the decision more forced.

 

[Leo]

After some googling I have found that this is a sales tactic used quite a bit by wedding dress shops. The discount is in fact being offered by the shop and not the design house.

Such pressure sales tactics are common across many industries. Best advice is to avoid any supplier using such tactics as it often means they do not want to give you time to shop around properly.

So who exactly was the money paid to, the shop or the design house ? Who is our contract with ? Who is giving us the discount ?

You handed the money over to the shop, the contract is between yourselves and the shop. The design house have no part in this. If one of their dresses was chosen, then a separate contract between the shop and design house would have been involved, you would never have engaged directly with the design house.

The time in which we got to try on the requested dresses was a the next trunk show. How can the shop prove that no other brides to be did not try on the same dress during this time ? If they did surely they should contribute to these shipping costs?

They're under no obligation to prove that. Best forget the shipping costs. Whether the shop encountered costs or not has no bearing here.

 

[Leo]

Additionally when we first asked for our money back we were told by a member of staff that this money had been paid to the design house. If that is the case how can we now use the deposit to purchase a dress from any designer the Irish shop stocks ?

Perhaps it was never sent to the design house, and perhaps it was and used as part payment towards dresses ordered by others, ultimately none of that matters. The shop is entitled to allow you use the deposit against other goods.

 

[Pugmister]

I disagree and believe that if we were told that the design house was the one offering the discount when in fact it was the shop then we were lead into entering a contract under false pretenses. If not unlawful certainly unethical practices.

Also while it be may be considered a "romantic" notion I do believe the circumstances of this purchase have to be considered. A wedding day irrespective of how logical and clinical you want to be is a very special day for a woman. I do feel that their is a moral responsibility on the shop to recognize this.

Yes we have a moral obligation also and the shop should not be out of pocket due to us changing our mind. One point to note when I spoke to the owner she did say we wouldn't pay all the shipping costs but didn't know how to calculate appropriate costs. The owner is a very charming person and well versed in a hard sell so that is why she pushing not to refund the money back before my fiancee visits the shop again on Thursday. She is hoping to force a commitment onto an alternative dress.

 

[Leo]

I disagree and believe that if we were told that the design house was the one offering the discount when in fact it was the shop then we were lead into entering a contract under false pretenses. If not unlawful certainly unethical practices.

Without a contract/ agreement in writing, I'm afraid you will find that very difficult to prove.

Also while it be may be considered a "romantic" notion I do believe the circumstances of this purchase have to be considered.

I understand that fully that's how you feel, but if you want cold hard advice based on the law as it stands, I'm sure you're aware there is no such consideration allowed.

Yes we have a moral obligation also and the shop should not be out of pocket due to us changing our mind.

More than that, having entered into the contract, you have a legal obligation to complete the purchase. If they had refused to supply the dress, you would be fully entitled to take a case for specific performance of the contract. They are also entitled to do so, but it's extremely unlikely a shop would pursue you to complete.

It sounds like you might get a good result by meeting face to face, remaining calm and resisting the hard sell to choose another dress. Hopefully you'll get your money back, and best of luck with all the preps for the big day.

 

[Pugmister]

We do have an email from the shop explicitly stating that the design house is offering this discount and will never be offered again.. Anytime we have contacted the design house they have been very forthcoming with information and really were not happy that the dresses we requested were not relayed on to them. I might email the design house to confirm if they were offering a discount. If they confirm the weren't and it was indeed the shop would this give cause to the contract being void ?

Many thanks, I will ensure my fiancee remains calm on Thursday during the meeting as I don't want to sour relationships with the shop. I have every belief that she may change her mind on the other dress she has seen and want to revert back to something from the original shop.

Ultimately I just want her to be able to make a 100% independent decision on her dress.

 

[Leo]

We do have an email from the shop explicitly stating that the design house is offering this discount and will never be offered again.. Anytime we have contacted the design house they have been very forthcoming with information and really were not happy that the dresses we requested were not relayed on to them. I might email the design house to confirm if they were offering a discount. If they confirm the weren't and it was indeed the shop would this give cause to the contract being void ?

If the timing of that original email from the shop is before or at the time the deposit was handed over then yes, that puts you in a better place, even if just to have the threat of reputational damage for misleading practices. It's interesting the design house have replied directly, given the price of these dresses and the margin the shop is likely making, they my be encouraged to facilitate you so as to retain their exclusive distribution deal.

Ultimately I just want her to be able to make a 100% independent decision on her dress.

Let us know how she gets on. Perhaps if she was able to bring a friend or two to the shop just to be there in the background, might be more accommodating.

 

[Leper]

The water is being muddied but the agreement remains the same. A wedding dress was being bought. A large down-payment (even call it a deposit) was made and as a result a discount offered against the overall price of the dress. Perhaps it was a sales ploy by the shop? These days shops have to do all they can within the law to attract customers. Businesses cannot survive without customers. I reckon the shop behaved well in this case. The customer did not.

Bottom Line:- There is no evidence that the shop reneged on the deal; the purchaser did break the agreement. There is such a thing as an agreement and the spirit of the agreement. Both were broken by the purchaser. Time for the purchaser to man-up, I believe.

 

[Marion]

Let's not forget another valuable consumer protection. The consumer protection Act 2007

[broken link removed]

Marion

 

[Pugmister]

The water is being muddied but the agreement remains the same. A wedding dress was being bought. A large down-payment (even call it a deposit) was made and as a result a discount offered against the overall price of the dress. Perhaps it was a sales ploy by the shop? These days shops have to do all they can within the law to attract customers. Businesses cannot survive without customers. I reckon the shop behaved well in this case. The customer did not.

Bottom Line:- There is no evidence that the shop reneged on the deal; the purchaser did break the agreement. There is such a thing as an agreement and the spirit of the agreement. Both were broken by the purchaser. Time for the purchaser to man-up, I believe.

Yes the customer reneged on the deal, however the customer was led to believe factually incorrect sales ploys in order to secure a sale.

Firstly we have confirmed in writing from the designer that any discount offered was by the shop, the designer does not offer said discounts.

Another bride to be has enquired about said dresses and been told that a discount will be offered on these dresses in January 2017. This has also been confirmed in writing by the same shop.

Finally we have spoke to the shop in London who has the UK license to sell these particular gowns. They have confirmed no discount by the design house. They have also said that before ordering dresses to try on they inform the customer that it will cost £150 to courier each specific dress. They also do not accept deposits for dresses until a specific gown is chosen and once deposit is received the particular fabric is cut.

Their is no financial loss to design house and a minor financial loss to the shop in our case. We are willing to accept part responsibility for this minor financial loss but not the total loss.

I know legally this has no standing but this matter is putting pressure on us. If we loose the money in its entirety it will have a serious impact on our wedding. The shop may or may not have to return the money but morally and ethically they should consider the business area they are in and at least consider all facts in the situation