On wedding woes, heartbreak hotel, and contractual compensation.

A couple booked a hotel for their wedding solemnisation and luncheon. The solemnisation was to be held at a special venue: a glass pavilion.

3 months before the wedding - disaster.

The hotel told them the pavilion was no longer available.

The couple's options were to:

a) settle for a different solemnisation venue;
b) delay the wedding; or
c) obtain a full refund.

None of these options are particularly attractive.¹

---

Some of you are probably wondering:

How can this be allowed?

Surely this must be a breach of contract on the hotel's part?

After all, the couple would have entered into a contract with the hotel, which would have specified the venue at which the solemnisation was to be held. If so, surely it would a breach of contract if the hotel failed to provide the specified venue? Can't the couple sue the hotel?

Maybe, maybe not.

---

As some commentators² have pointed out, the hotel's standard terms of business may have included a clause that allows the hotel to change the venue at its discretion.

So - that's that, right? Does the written contract trump whatever expectations the couple had, and is it their fault for agreeing to these terms?

Maybe, maybe not.

---

In Singapore, there's a law called the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.³

It applies when one of the contracting parties is a consumer (let's call this party the "Consumer"), or when the contract is based on the other party's written standard terms of business (let's call this party the "Vendor").

And what it says is that the Vendor cannot rely on a contract term to:

a) get out of trouble if the Vendor has breached the contract;
b) deliver something that is substantially different from what was expected of the Vendor; or
c) not deliver at all what it was supposed to deliver under the contract;

unless the contract term is "reasonable".

So for example:

a) a clause that says that the hotel is not obliged to provide the glass pavilion if it needs to be closed for repairs for safety reasons might be enforceable - if the Court thinks that this clause is reasonable; whereas

b) a clause that says that the hotel is not obliged to provide the glass pavilion at its sole discretion might not be enforceable - if the Court thinks that this clause is unreasonable.

Does this then mean that the couple should sue the hotel and recover compensation?

Maybe, maybe not.

---

The practical reality is that suing someone is an expensive and troublesome affair.

Even if the case is a slam dunk, one must still consider (a) the time and energy required to go to Court; and (b) the shortfall between the legal costs incurred and awarded, which will eat into any compensation awarded.

Unless, of course, it's a matter of principle, and for which the precise dollars and cents don't matter.⁴

If so: game on.