Oooops! No Video!

[Ozark_Sophist]

Entire package $3000. Photographer $650. Videographer $250.

 

[fairisfair]

I am in disagreement with most of the others who posted here.

If this couple gave you $900 to film their wedding ceremony and no contract was signed waiving any rights, an implied contract was made that said: We will film your wedding for $900 and give you the video. And you failed to deliver as promised.

It is all well and good to say you will reshoot the ceremony, but let me, like cbg, give you a sample exchange:

"We wil re-do your ceremony for you."
"But Aunt Mildred just flew home and she said the funniest thing during the ceremony."
"That's OK, our bellhop Jimmy will fill in. Just laugh like you did last time."

I'm sorry. But by not having a contract signed that waived all rights should something get screwed up, you screwed up.

The consumer is intended to be made "whole" again in this type of a lawsuit. Regardless of the "emotional duress" involved here. No judge is going to award damages in excess of a full refund of monies paid. Now where is BA?? LOL

 

[quincy]

Yes, I was sort of waiting for BA to jump in, too

I DO understand that the injured party is to be "made whole", which would mean a refund of the money spent for the video ($250) or a re-shooting of the video - and, if the hotel offers them $3000, or even $900, that is actually MORE, probably, than what a judge would order be awarded to the couple. That's what will most likely happen, markp64 - if their attorney does not settle the whole matter with the hotel before it gets to court.

HOWEVER, they can request a jury trial, right? If a jury can award a man a million dollars for a pair of pants lost by a dry cleaner, just think what they would award an older couple: a renewal of wedding vows after the wife has had several heart attacks; the expectation that they would be able to enjoy in their remaining years, and have their children and grandchildren enjoy in the years that follow, a video of the whole event; a perfectly planned ceremony ruined by a videographer's mistake......I think this couple, in absense of any contract waiving their right to sue, could win this often-talked-about "mythical" lottery jackpot (that is, of course, my mainstream media hype talking ).

 

[markp64]

Correction

I was unaware of the particular package that they had purchased when I first posted. I just through out some numbers so I could get my question posted. The bottom line is the statutory limit for small claims court is a maximum of $3,000 in Nevada. His claim would be for $900, (the amount of the wedding package) and any other amounts on top of that that he thinks he can get. I can't imagine that he could sue for punitive damages because we are willing to give ALL of his money back. Would somebody PLEASE help out and try and answer my question. Thanks in advance.

 

[fairisfair]

Yes, I was sort of waiting for BA to jump in, too

I DO understand that the injured party is to be "made whole", which would mean a refund of the money spent for the video ($250) or a re-shooting of the video - and, if the hotel offers them $3000, or even $900, that is actually MORE, probably, than what a judge would order be awarded to the couple. That's what will most likely happen, markp64 - if their attorney does not settle the whole matter with the hotel before it gets to court.

HOWEVER, they can request a jury trial, right? If a jury can award a man a million dollars for a pair of pants lost by a dry cleaner, just think what they would award an older couple: a renewal of wedding vows after the wife has had several heart attacks; the expectation that they would be able to enjoy in their remaining years, and have their children and grandchildren enjoy in the years that follow, a video of the whole event; a perfectly planned ceremony ruined by a videographer's mistake......I think this couple, in absense of any contract waiving their right to sue, could win this often-talked-about "mythical" lottery jackpot (that is, of course, my mainstream media hype talking ).

Not gonna happen. Oh, and you just might want to look up the outcome of that pants/dry cleaner suit (*pun intended) there was no award.

Aw, yeah, I can just picture them in their rocking chairs, just wishing they had that LAS VEGAS WEDDING video to show to the grandbabies. LOL

 

[BoredAtty]

Breach of contract, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress are three separate causes of action. In order to determine which is appropriate, if any, consider the following:

Breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform bargained for duties imposed by the terms of a contract. When damages arise from a breach of contract, a party is generally barred from recovering in negligence.

Negligence occurs when a party breaches a duty imposed by law (as opposed to a contractual duty), and property damage or bodily injury results. For example, every driver has duty to drive his car reasonably, and if a driver breaches that duty and causes an injury, he is liable for negligence.

Infliction of emotional distress occurs when a party’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer severe emotional distress which is accompanied by physical symptoms.

In the case at hand, even if there is no signed document, a contract still exists. Therefore, if one party failed to perform according to the terms of that contract, negligence does not apply – breach of contract is the proper cause of action. Infliction of emotional distress is definitely not applicable, since taping over a wedding ceremony is not extreme and outrageous (granted, that’s a judgment call, but the conduct must have been outside all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community). I also doubt, though I don't know, that the plaintiffs' have suffered severe emotional distress (where general physical or emotional discomfort is insufficient) as a result of the ruined recording.

 

[fairisfair]

I was unaware of the particular package that they had purchased when I first posted. I just through out some numbers so I could get my question posted. The bottom line is the statutory limit for small claims court is a maximum of $3,000 in Nevada. His claim would be for $900, (the amount of the wedding package) and any other amounts on top of that that he thinks he can get. I can't imagine that he could sue for punitive damages because we are willing to give ALL of his money back. Would somebody PLEASE help out and try and answer my question. Thanks in advance.

what part of the answer is unclear? The fact that some of us disagree?

Well, you will have to wait for the judge to make that decision. and that darned Rmet, she has NEVER returned the crystal ball.

 

[fairisfair]

Breach of contract, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress are three separate causes of action. In order to determine which is appropriate, if any, consider the following:

Breach of contract occurs when a party fails to perform bargained for duties imposed by the terms of a contract. When damages arise from a breach of contract, a party is generally barred from recovering in negligence.

Negligence occurs when a party breaches a duty imposed by law (as opposed to a contractual duty), and property damage or bodily injury results. For example, every driver has duty to drive his car reasonably, and if a driver breaches that duty and causes an injury, he is liable for negligence.

Infliction of emotional distress occurs when a party’s extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer severe emotional distress which is accompanied by physical symptoms.

In the case at hand, even if there is no signed document, a contract still exists. Therefore, if one party failed to perform according to the terms of that contract, negligence does not apply – breach of contract is the proper cause of action. Infliction of emotional distress is definitely not applicable, since taping over a wedding ceremony is not extreme and outrageous (granted, that’s a judgment call, but the conduct must have been outside all possible bounds of decency and is regarded as utterly intolerable in a civilized community). I also doubt, though I don't know, that the plaintiffs' have suffered severe emotional distress (where general physical or emotional discomfort is insufficient) as a result of the ruined recording.

Well, speak of the devil. Hello darlin'!!!! LOL

 

[Quaere]

Do they have a case?

Yes, they have a case. They relied on a professional to capture the moment. The hotel MUST have insurance for this or any other mishap that results in less than adequate service.

The contract states:

Casino/Hotel acknowledges that film, photographs, digital files, and video can be damaged by a variety of factors. The wedding couple assumes all risk of such damages and herein waives any and all claims or warranties against Casino/Hotel or their agentswho may process said film, photographs, digital files, or video, including any and all incidental and consequential damages."

I just found out yesterday that a photo/video contract was NOT signed.

Who dropped the ball on getting the contract signed?

I am not an employee of the casino. I am employed by a photography studio that is contracted by the casino.

Doesn’t the studio have insurance?

Someone said that they actually can take this to a civil proceeding even though the amount they spent, $900, would be a small claims case.

The value of their claim exceeds the value of the services they contracted for. They are not limited to small claims court.

They said no and have contacted their lawyer who is waiting to hear from the hotel's lawyer.

So, let the lawyers haggle over the value of the claim. This is not a slip and fall worth tens of thousands of dollars. The couple will be lucky to get $5,000.00.

Question: If we offer their money back and they say no, what case do they have.

They have the loss of a video record of their event.

If in fact you work for a studio that is under contract with a hotel, I don’t understand why you are concerned about this. It’s a simple claim and even if it was your fault that the contract wasn’t signed, if you have a good history with your employer this shouldn’t be any big deal.