|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-23-2010, 03:05 PM
|
| |
At the end of the day, it is about a deposit that was waived on a job that wasn't performed. That is where it would get dicey in small claims court. In Florida, it would go before mandatory arbitration before going to the judge. Under the circumstances, even if the case was won, I don't think it would really come out financially ahead and don't really expect a garnishement order from that type of case in some jurisdictions. Plus, there is such a thing as negative advertisement.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-18-2010, 05:43 PM
|
| |
If the OP took pictures, the wedding party do not have a right to expect those for free either. I guarantee a win in small claims court if it were local to me had pictures been actually taken but under the circumstances, no win. Just because a deposit was waived doesn't mean he was doing the shoot for free. If a land lord waives a deposit to allow renters to move in, they still have to pay rent as per a lease or month to month. However, in this analogy the renters didn't move in. That's what the deposit was for in part! However, its not worth the trouble for recouping a deposit.
P.S. I won't do a wedding unless someone is holding a shotgun to the back of my head. I'd rather shoot a funeral because nothing good can come out of a wedding most of the time regarding brides, mothers and mothers-in-laws. What are the odds of all 3 being pleased?
|
