If I was the judge, I'd wait for the hearing to run it's course and then dismiss the case, give the parents a good bollocking for frivolous misuse of the legal system and then saddle them with the costs.
I'd fine them and make them pay court costs for wasting the court's time and pay the other party compensation.
I am just wondering too whether the agreement was not that the party organiser was to actually pay for all the children attending, just that she would pay upfront to book, and collect the money from any children who had agreed to attend on the day or something?
yes im going to assume this is to cover the dry sky slope, but its not like she had not budgetted for the child coming anyways, it was not £16 extra she had to find so im not sure how she was out of pocket (she does not strike me as the kind of perosn not to budget) I dont think the ski slope is giving her any grief, however it seems they may have taken the group booking, and was unable / unwilling to return the cost of the 1 child who didnt turn up.
True that £16 was wasted, but there really has to be a better way to deal with this kind of thing.
What was wrong with just throwing a normal birthday party for children of that age? I agree, though, that this does seem petty and childish, but the other parents should have let them know that their child wasn't going. Faults on both sides.
Surely this is just one of those times you just pay it and move on? Given that the children and 5, its highly likely her own son will be invited to many parties during his youth so statistically he will also be absent from at least one that hes agreed to go through, whether its because of illness, family issues, or something more important comes up on the day.
If she starts charging for no shows at her sons party, then she will be expected to pay each time her son doesnt attend a party.
Sure, shes lost £16 this year, but potentially she could end up paying out a lot more than that over the next 10 years if the other parents decide to follow her lead.
It's not clear to me whether the parents of the children invited were all told that the cost of attending the event would be £15.95. If so, the acceptance of the invitation would have been an acceptance of the cost so the child who didn't go should still pay.
If the parents of the child organising the event were intending to pick up the whole cost themselves it won't have cost them any more money for someone who didn't attend. They may have been able to reduce the cost if the venue accepted a cancellation, but suspect there would have been no refund given. They may have been able to invite another child if given enough notice.
Surely this is just one of those times you just pay it and move on? Given that the children and 5, its highly likely her own son will be invited to many parties during his youth so statistically he will also be absent from at least one that hes agreed to go through, whether its because of illness, family issues, or something more important comes up on the day.
If she starts charging for no shows at her sons party, then she will be expected to pay each time her son doesnt attend a party.
Sure, shes lost £16 this year, but potentially she could end up paying out a lot more than that over the next 10 years if the other parents decide to follow her lead.
I think this supports the findings in the female anger epidemic thread. They are getting angrier.
No, they admit that their son didn't turn up after saying he would go.
At no point do they "admit" to agreeing to paying a "non-attandance fee" (or anything else for that matter).
Ah, but perhaps his agreement to attend constituted a "verbal contract"?
Now we just need to determine whether it's possible for a minor to enter into a contract at all in the UK.
Hopefully the parents will retain the services of some of the best legal minds in the country and run up a huge bill in their tireless pursuit of their 16 quid.
And, meanwhile, their kid will end up as billy-no-mates cos all the other parents will tell their kids to avoid him like the plague for fear of legal repercussions.
Imagine what might happen if your kid ripped his coat or knocked him over during a game of bulldogs or summat?
This is likely one of those things where the person coming forward to the news media is the problem.
That person being the father of the boy, Mr Nash.
He's probably a nut case because what parent would expose their child to all this media fuss for the matter of £16?
Basically he's using his child to embarrass the mother who organised the party and dared ask him to pay for his sons no-show.
And we only have his side of the story, maybe the mother 'phoned him several times asking him to pay.
I think it very unlikely that the father was not told in advance what the event was going to be and how much it would cost. I mean, with health and safety as it is nowadays?
I would say he agreed to pay and then reneged on that. That's more likely isn't it?
While it's completely ridiculous to 'invoice' the other family and is a complete over reaction, I have to admit I think it's a rude, crappy thing to just not show up to a child's birthday party when you have been invited. It takes 2 minutes to contact the parents and say you're sorry, but your child can't make it. It's common courtesy.
Neither family has covered themselves in glory IMO.
This is likely one of those things where the person coming forward to the news media is the problem.
That person being the father of the boy, Mr Nash.
He's probably a nut case because what parent would expose their child to all this media fuss for the matter of £16?
Basically he's using his child to embarrass the mother who organised the party and dared ask him to pay for his sons no-show.
And we only have his side of the story, maybe the mother 'phoned him several times asking him to pay.
Not sure about that.
I mean, if the mother did contact the father and demand payment, a refusal should've been the end of the matter rather than an official invoice and the threat of legal action.
Ah, but perhaps his agreement to attend constituted a "verbal contract"?
It then boils down to what the verbal contract entailed. Was it clear that a "no-show fee" would be charged? Or, if it's the case that attendees were required to pay, was that made clear? And was that subsequently agreed to?
There's so many things that need proven (on balance of probabilities) for this claim to succeed.
Now we just need to determine whether it's possible for a minor to enter into a contract at all in the UK.
Well indeed. I'd also assume the invite used unambiguous and legally-specific language because if this does make it to court (unlikely) I can't see any judge being impressed at the triviality of it.
In fact, the amount might be regarded as de minimis and summarily dismissed.
Surely this is just one of those times you just pay it and move on? Given that the children and 5, its highly likely her own son will be invited to many parties during his youth so statistically he will also be absent from at least one that hes agreed to go through, whether its because of illness, family issues, or something more important comes up on the day.
If she starts charging for no shows at her sons party, then she will be expected to pay each time her son doesnt attend a party.
Sure, shes lost £16 this year, but potentially she could end up paying out a lot more than that over the next 10 years if the other parents decide to follow her lead.
You'd think so wouldn't you, most sensible people would.
I mean, if the mother did contact the father and demand payment, a refusal should've been the end of the matter rather than an official invoice and the threat of legal action.
It was 16 quid. Suck it up.
But you only have his side of the story, maybe he asked her to send an invoice in order to get "evidence" so he could go to the media?
A person who would go public with a trivial thing like this has got some screws loose I think.
No, they admit that their son didn't turn up after saying he would go.
At no point do they "admit" to agreeing to paying a "non-attandance fee" (or anything else for that matter).
If they agreed he would go, and were aware there were costs involved, then the fact they may not have specifically agreed to paying a "non-attendance fee" is irrelevant.
If I order a takeaway then refuse to pay without good reason when it arrives, and the business suffers a loss because of that, the fact I haven't agreed to a specific clause that I owe them damages in the event that I refuse to pay for the food doesn't absolve me.
All of this is rather moot, given that we only have the scant details in the BBC article to go off (and, of course, it's never going to go anywhere near a County Court), but your blanket assertion that the claim could be dismissed simply because the agreement was made verbally is clearly wrong.
If they agreed he would go, and were aware there were costs involved, then the fact they may not have specifically agreed to paying a "non-attendance fee" is irrelevant.
If I order a takeaway then refuse to pay without good reason when it arrives, and the business suffers a loss because of that, the fact I haven't agreed to a specific clause that I owe them damages in the event that I refuse to pay for the food doesn't absolve me.
Well, no, because you know that you're supposed to pay. The business can then pursue you for the cost of the food and any associated costs incurred in that pursuit.
If the invite did not make any mention of costs, the claimant doesn't have a leg to stand on. To use your analogy, it's the same as you accepting a free meal from a takeaway then refusing it when it arrives.
All of this is rather moot, given that we only have the scant details in the BBC article to go off, but your blanket assertion that the claim could be dismissed because the agreement was made verbally is clearly wrong.
I never made a blanket assertion. I gave an opinion, which I've subsequently expanded on.
Comments
I'd fine them and make them pay court costs for wasting the court's time and pay the other party compensation.
True that £16 was wasted, but there really has to be a better way to deal with this kind of thing.
Well that's not a problem in this case, given that the parents admit that it happened.
At no point do they "admit" to agreeing to paying a "non-attandance fee" (or anything else for that matter).
If she starts charging for no shows at her sons party, then she will be expected to pay each time her son doesnt attend a party.
Sure, shes lost £16 this year, but potentially she could end up paying out a lot more than that over the next 10 years if the other parents decide to follow her lead.
Maybe. I would think the ski centre would have specific activities for younger childrens parties though.
If the parents of the child organising the event were intending to pick up the whole cost themselves it won't have cost them any more money for someone who didn't attend. They may have been able to reduce the cost if the venue accepted a cancellation, but suspect there would have been no refund given. They may have been able to invite another child if given enough notice.
I think this supports the findings in the female anger epidemic thread. They are getting angrier.
Ah, but perhaps his agreement to attend constituted a "verbal contract"?
Now we just need to determine whether it's possible for a minor to enter into a contract at all in the UK.
Hopefully the parents will retain the services of some of the best legal minds in the country and run up a huge bill in their tireless pursuit of their 16 quid.
And, meanwhile, their kid will end up as billy-no-mates cos all the other parents will tell their kids to avoid him like the plague for fear of legal repercussions.
Imagine what might happen if your kid ripped his coat or knocked him over during a game of bulldogs or summat?
That person being the father of the boy, Mr Nash.
He's probably a nut case because what parent would expose their child to all this media fuss for the matter of £16?
Basically he's using his child to embarrass the mother who organised the party and dared ask him to pay for his sons no-show.
And we only have his side of the story, maybe the mother 'phoned him several times asking him to pay.
I think it very unlikely that the father was not told in advance what the event was going to be and how much it would cost. I mean, with health and safety as it is nowadays?
I would say he agreed to pay and then reneged on that. That's more likely isn't it?
Neither family has covered themselves in glory IMO.
I don't find so. Some people are just perpetually angry . Out of interest do females tend to get angrier in you presence?
Not sure about that.
I mean, if the mother did contact the father and demand payment, a refusal should've been the end of the matter rather than an official invoice and the threat of legal action.
It was 16 quid. Suck it up.
There's so many things that need proven (on balance of probabilities) for this claim to succeed.
Well indeed. I'd also assume the invite used unambiguous and legally-specific language because if this does make it to court (unlikely) I can't see any judge being impressed at the triviality of it.
In fact, the amount might be regarded as de minimis and summarily dismissed.
You'd think so wouldn't you, most sensible people would.
It's usually the man' s fault, isn't it?
But you only have his side of the story, maybe he asked her to send an invoice in order to get "evidence" so he could go to the media?
A person who would go public with a trivial thing like this has got some screws loose I think.
If they agreed he would go, and were aware there were costs involved, then the fact they may not have specifically agreed to paying a "non-attendance fee" is irrelevant.
If I order a takeaway then refuse to pay without good reason when it arrives, and the business suffers a loss because of that, the fact I haven't agreed to a specific clause that I owe them damages in the event that I refuse to pay for the food doesn't absolve me.
All of this is rather moot, given that we only have the scant details in the BBC article to go off (and, of course, it's never going to go anywhere near a County Court), but your blanket assertion that the claim could be dismissed simply because the agreement was made verbally is clearly wrong.
If the invite did not make any mention of costs, the claimant doesn't have a leg to stand on. To use your analogy, it's the same as you accepting a free meal from a takeaway then refusing it when it arrives.
I never made a blanket assertion. I gave an opinion, which I've subsequently expanded on.