Would you ever...

[momhappy]

To me, it is particularly bad form to now threaten a negative review for a vendor who is enforcing a provision of a contract which was signed by all parties, presumably after a period of time sufficient for review and negotiation.

I completely agree. We don't know any of the specifics, so to assume that the situation is idiotic/ridiculous is unfair. There could be laws, rules, safety violations, etc. at play and the bottom line is if they violated a contract, they violated a contract. Giving a business a poor review as a result of the contract violation would be in poor taste IMO. If this truly was the fault of the wedding party (which includes their guests), then it's a wedding expense and the venue shouldn't be blamed for things out of their control.

 

[iLander]

Well, then don't threaten.

I would write the review and explain exactly what happened, without an opinion, let the reader decide. If I were considering venues, I would want to know about the extra-picky, whiny venues.

I just can't imagine what the venue did to the car that they think they deserve $300 for it.

Did they detail it or something?

And picking up an alcohol bottle? Did they hire Mick Jagger to come and do that for them? Wait, I just reread and it was IN THE TRASH CAN. What the hell is the can there for then? If not to put trash in it? Honestly!

I would at LEAST want a detailed explanation of how they expended $300. Because that's ridiculous, contract or no contract. Using the word "safety" does not relieve you of the duty of explaining the expense.

As for charging the guest, go ahead if you have no interest in ever hearing from them again.

 

[CJ2008]

I just can't imagine what the venue did to the car that they think they deserve $300 for it.

Did they detail it or something?

And picking up an alcohol bottle? Did they hire Mick Jagger to come and do that for them?

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

I would just pay it and not say anything even though I wouldn't like it.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

 

[nala]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

 

[nala]

Update: I gave her my advice, but apparently I was too late . She went ahead and texted the guest (a good friend of hers) and mentioned that while she had a great wedding, she was disappointed because the venue withheld $300 for two "infractions" and then she described what the infractions were, knowing fully well that he knows he committed them. She didn't show me the text, but that was the overall gist. She is hoping the guest is "ethical" (her words) enough to offer to pay.

 

[momhappy]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

and this just goes to show that there are rules/laws/policies at play - not just a venue trying to make a buck….
Thanks for the update, Nala. It will be interesting to see how it all works out with your friend. Keep us posted

 

[iLander]

A fine? I'm sorry, but the only people that can "fine" me is the police department.

My "policy" is not to pay "fines".

Ridiculous that people that are on the receiving end of the check treat their customers this way.

 

[momhappy]

It's not a fine - it's a loss of a deposit (or a portion of it) from what I understand. I would assume that the couple signed a contract and in the contract it likely states something about no cars left overnight, no outside alcohol brought in, etc. It's not unlike any other situation that requires a deposit, so I don't understand what all of the fuss would be about. If I violated the terms of a contract, I would expect to suffer the consequences as opposed blaming others (like a wedding guest or the venue).

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

That sucks that your friend went ahead and did that. Personally, I would have had that taken out of the contract when I booked or booked elsewhere. Since it's too late for that I would have fought with the venue and probably threatened with some very honest online reviews of they could not "waive" the fines. Lastly, I would have accepted the deposit less the fines and posted very honest reviews anywhere I could. I would never have said anything to the guest.

 

[marymm]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

This kind of scenario directly risks the vendor's liquor license, which if a first instance could be suspended for 15+ days for "consumption of alcohol after-hours" and/or "consumption of alcohol obtained outside the liquor license" .... Of course, any fine/suspension is dependent on the issuing agency and the vendor's specific history, but clearly the potential loss to the vendor is well in excess of $300.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

A fine? I'm sorry, but the only people that can "fine" me is the police department.

My "policy" is not to pay "fines".

Ridiculous that people that are on the receiving end of the check treat their customers this way.

There are plenty of contracts that specify fines if specific clauses are broken (often for both sides, such as a discount if the merchandise is delivered late or a fine is payment is late). They are there to protect a business from bad customers, who do exist. In my view, both the payer and the payee are equal in a business deal, the payee shouldn't be grovelling for business and thanking the payer for throwing some money their way in return for the services.

You can have any policy you like for yourself, though. I do recommend reading contracts very carefully, since even your local library has fines in their policies. Not paying a fine in a contract is breaking your word and can land you in small claims court.

 

[NOYFB]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Wait, how is that evidence that alcohol was brought in? The alcohol bottle was OUTSIDE in the trash can. If anything, I think it's evidence that someone was drinking their own liquor in the parking lot, not inside the venue itself, and then made the wise decision not to drive. But then again, how do they know it was the car owner who put the alcohol bottle in the trash can? It could have been anyone (a homeless person, perhaps) that dropped it in there as they were walking by. Did they have a security camera?

 

[aviastar]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Wait, how is that evidence that alcohol was brought in? The alcohol bottle was OUTSIDE in the trash can. If anything, I think it's evidence that someone was drinking their own liquor in the parking lot, not inside the venue itself, and then made the wise decision not to drive. But then again, how do they know it was the car owner who put the alcohol bottle in the trash can? It could have been anyone (a homeless person, perhaps) that dropped it in there as they were walking by. Did they have a security camera?

It doesn't matter if the bottle, and who drank from it, is connected to the car as long as they can reasonably prove that both (or either if both 'infractions' are specified in the contract) were guests of the party. If the outside alcohol was consumed on their property by a guest it is grounds for them to lose their liquor license, as stated above. ABC laws are antiquated and opaque- it doesn't have to make sense that the venue is responsible for the behavior of a random guest, it simply is that way and they can be penalized very heavily for it, not only in fines they are responsible for paying but in loss of revenue. So the fine dictated in the contract is meant to heavily discourage the behavior. This is an incredibly strict interpretation of the clause, but maybe they have a super strict ABC agent, maybe this happens all the time and they are simply sick of the risk, maybe they were due for a walk through...any number of reasons they felt they needed to enact the clause. One of them is greed, how would we know?- but the contract was signed, so they are within their legal rights to be strict if they want to.

If this is a private venue, say a country club or estate, it's reasonable to assume that both the bottle and the car belong to a guest. If this is an urban location with passing foot traffic, they are going to have a very hard time proving the bottle was connected to the party without a camera.

I totally get the alcohol thing, the car in the parking lot not so much. Maybe if it's left for more than 24 hours since they will have other events that will be using the lot.

There are plenty of contracts that specify fines if specific clauses are broken (often for both sides, such as a discount if the merchandise is delivered late or a fine is payment is late). They are there to protect a business from bad customers, who do exist. In my view, both the payer and the payee are equal in a business deal, the payee shouldn't be grovelling for business and thanking the payer for throwing some money their way in return for the services.

You can have any policy you like for yourself, though. I do recommend reading contracts very carefully, since even your local library has fines in their policies. Not paying a fine in a contract is breaking your word and can land you in small claims court.

Vendors/businesses and clients BOTH have the right to work with people who are a good fit- not every match up is going to be a good one, but there should be no groveling involved on either side as these types of things are supposed to be of mutual benefit to both parties.

 

[momhappy]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Wait, how is that evidence that alcohol was brought in? The alcohol bottle was OUTSIDE in the trash can. If anything, I think it's evidence that someone was drinking their own liquor in the parking lot, not inside the venue itself, and then made the wise decision not to drive. But then again, how do they know it was the car owner who put the alcohol bottle in the trash can? It could have been anyone (a homeless person, perhaps) that dropped it in there as they were walking by. Did they have a security camera?

It doesn't matter if the bottle, and who drank from it, is connected to the car as long as they can reasonably prove that both (or either if both 'infractions' are specified in the contract) were guests of the party. If the outside alcohol was consumed on their property by a guest it is grounds for them to lose their liquor license, as stated above. ABC laws are antiquated and opaque- it doesn't have to make sense that the venue is responsible for the behavior of a random guest, it simply is that way and they can be penalized very heavily for it, not only in fines they are responsible for paying but in loss of revenue. So the fine dictated in the contract is meant to heavily discourage the behavior. This is an incredibly strict interpretation of the clause, but maybe they have a super strict ABC agent, maybe this happens all the time and they are simply sick of the risk, maybe they were due for a walk through...any number of reasons they felt they needed to enact the clause. One of them is greed, how would we know?- but the contract was signed, so they are within their legal rights to be strict if they want to.

If this is a private venue, say a country club or estate, it's reasonable to assume that both the bottle and the car belong to a guest. If this is an urban location with passing foot traffic, they are going to have a very hard time proving the bottle was connected to the party without a camera.

I totally get the alcohol thing, the car in the parking lot not so much. Maybe if it's left for more than 24 hours since they will have other events that will be using the lot.

There are plenty of contracts that specify fines if specific clauses are broken (often for both sides, such as a discount if the merchandise is delivered late or a fine is payment is late). They are there to protect a business from bad customers, who do exist. In my view, both the payer and the payee are equal in a business deal, the payee shouldn't be grovelling for business and thanking the payer for throwing some money their way in return for the services.

You can have any policy you like for yourself, though. I do recommend reading contracts very carefully, since even your local library has fines in their policies. Not paying a fine in a contract is breaking your word and can land you in small claims court.

Vendors/businesses and clients BOTH have the right to work with people who are a good fit- not every match up is going to be a good one, but there should be no groveling involved on either side as these types of things are supposed to be of mutual benefit to both parties.

Many businesses and/or public spaces have specific rules about parking overnight. Some bars even market safe, overnight parking lots because in many cases, if you leave a car overnight, you risk having it towed. I suppose a car left overnight could be a safety hazard (attracting things like vandalism, theft, etc.) or maybe even fall under some sort of "abandoned" vehicle laws. I would assume that a wedding reception venue would be very specific about parking and while it would be unfortunate if a guest violated the contract, it would still be the fault/responsibility of the couple who signed the contract.

 

[jordyonbass]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

and this just goes to show that there are rules/laws/policies at play - not just a venue trying to make a buck….
Thanks for the update, Nala. It will be interesting to see how it all works out with your friend. Keep us posted

From someone who used to run pubs; this is common policy for all venues, however this is policed by monitoring during the event what is being drunk by patrons and controlling it and not by checking the bins the day afterwards for empty bottles that aren't from your fridges and charging the people who hired the venue. IMO it's a great way to get a very bad reputation for your venue.

I find this despicable as a former proprietor of various bars, restaurants, pubs etc. This does not affect the venue in any way at all in a monetary fashion as they had already taken a large amount of money for the wedding and did not lose out by someone else bringing alcohol, if anything they make money from that since the drinks are all pre-bought. So it's just sucking every dollar possible from the newlyweds IMO.

Personally I feel this thread should have been more about whether the charges are reasonable from the venue rather than whether the guest should be charged.

 

[jordyonbass]

Well, then don't threaten.

I would write the review and explain exactly what happened, without an opinion, let the reader decide. If I were considering venues, I would want to know about the extra-picky, whiny venues.

I just can't imagine what the venue did to the car that they think they deserve $300 for it.

Did they detail it or something?

And picking up an alcohol bottle? Did they hire Mick Jagger to come and do that for them? Wait, I just reread and it was IN THE TRASH CAN. What the hell is the can there for then? If not to put trash in it? Honestly!

I would at LEAST want a detailed explanation of how they expended $300. Because that's ridiculous, contract or no contract. Using the word "safety" does not relieve you of the duty of explaining the expense.

As for charging the guest, go ahead if you have no interest in ever hearing from them again.

iLander, please tell me that you have run pubs/bars/restaurants as well as your though process is exactly the same as mine!

I'd actually be naming and shaming this venue if I were OP. I've had people try name and shame my venues for far less.

 

[nala]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

and this just goes to show that there are rules/laws/policies at play - not just a venue trying to make a buck….
Thanks for the update, Nala. It will be interesting to see how it all works out with your friend. Keep us posted

From someone who used to run pubs; this is common policy for all venues, however this is policed by monitoring during the event what is being drunk by patrons and controlling it and not by checking the bins the day afterwards for empty bottles that aren't from your fridges and charging the people who hired the venue. IMO it's a great way to get a very bad reputation for your venue.

I find this despicable as a former proprietor of various bars, restaurants, pubs etc. This does not affect the venue in any way at all in a monetary fashion as they had already taken a large amount of money for the wedding and did not lose out by someone else bringing alcohol, if anything they make money from that since the drinks are all pre-bought. So it's just sucking every dollar possible from the newlyweds IMO.

Personally I feel this thread should have been more about whether the charges are reasonable from the venue rather than whether the guest should be charged.

My friend didn't ask me about how to dispute the charges--she had already paid them. She asked me for advice about billing a guest and that is what I came seeking advice for.

 

[jordyonbass]

Perhaps the problem with the alcohol bottle isn't so much that it is in the trash can but rather as evidence that outside alcohol was brought in.

Yes, this was the issue.

and this just goes to show that there are rules/laws/policies at play - not just a venue trying to make a buck….
Thanks for the update, Nala. It will be interesting to see how it all works out with your friend. Keep us posted

From someone who used to run pubs; this is common policy for all venues, however this is policed by monitoring during the event what is being drunk by patrons and controlling it and not by checking the bins the day afterwards for empty bottles that aren't from your fridges and charging the people who hired the venue. IMO it's a great way to get a very bad reputation for your venue.

I find this despicable as a former proprietor of various bars, restaurants, pubs etc. This does not affect the venue in any way at all in a monetary fashion as they had already taken a large amount of money for the wedding and did not lose out by someone else bringing alcohol, if anything they make money from that since the drinks are all pre-bought. So it's just sucking every dollar possible from the newlyweds IMO.

Personally I feel this thread should have been more about whether the charges are reasonable from the venue rather than whether the guest should be charged.

My friend didn't ask me about how to dispute the charges--she had already paid them. She asked me for advice about billing a guest and that is what I came seeking advice for.

I understand that Nala, I've just never heard of a venue doing something as disgusting as this before and can't even find an excuse for them as to why they have done this (and I think that the venue owner has probably pocketed the $300 themselves). I even spoke to my wife who was in the industry longer and she thinks it is absolutely disgusting as well. In my opinion it should have never gotten to the point where your friend asked for advice on what to do, she should have never been billed by the venue.

Is it too late for your friend to email the venue and ask them how a car being left at a venue overnight and an empty alcohol container in a bin from an unknown source cost the venue $300 to rectify? I know what I am saying here is not in relation to the reason that the thread, but this thread should have never been made for this issue IMO.

 

[MollyMalone]

jordy, such contract terms are far more common in the States than you in Australia -- and as seen in this thread, many who live here -- realize. These are penalties for contract violations, NOT restitution for expenses actually incurred.

They are intended to discourage/eliminate
* cars being abandoned in the parking lot, where they present a liability risk to the venue (e.g., a potential claim of auto theft or vandalism to the car), and can be in the way of vendors making deliveries the following morning and guests arriving for another event the next day. Understandably enough, venues don't want to pay an employee to stay overtime to arrange for and oversee towing, and not every vehicle can be simply towed; there are tow-proof vehicles that must be flat-bedded.
* the on-premises consumption of alcohol not served by the licensee. As marymm and others have tried to explain, this is no small matter for those with liquor licenses, and the attendant, special liability insurance policies. (Even if the venue allows you, the host, to furnish the alcohol, many states/localities require that the venue's licensed employees must be the ones to serve it -- or you may have to obtain a bond, which will have the same kinds of conditions.)

By spelling out in the contract that the hosts will be financially penalized for violations of the terms, the venue hopes that the hosts will see to it that the contract terms (which frequently also include such things as "no throwing of rice or confetti") are honored.

It's quite possible that had anyone given the courtesy of alerting the staff, before the hosts and guests departed, to the fact that Mr. Guest was not fit to drive his own car, a more satisfactory resolution could have been reached.

(Does anyone else think it's sad that a wedding guest would feel it necessary to "tailgate" outside the reception?)

 

[jordyonbass]

Molly,

I understand that and wish to point out that the laws here in Australia are virtually the same in those regards as far as liquor laws and liability (although vehicle insurance should cover this or the contract should state the venue takes no responsibility for vehicles left overnight, not fine customers when a car is left there). If anything the laws are actually more stringent here in australia, I have had many people come from the US and state how surprisingly strict our laws are. I think it's our government trying to clear up our reputation as a country of drunks

I still do not accept that the venue should be charging $300 for these little issues; there is not a venue in Australia that I know of that would charge this cost; from small B&B's all the way up to the most famous 6 star hospitality establishments and everything in between. My wedding party drank the venue dry of all their beer and nearly caused the venue to catch on fire twice during the reception from throwing cigarette butts. We did not have any extra charge at all for the damage or the litter (despite feeling absolutely terrible about it) and I think many would agree that's a lot more serious than a parked car and an alcohol bottle in a bin.

A $50 charge would still be excessive in my eyes, but far more reasonable. But $300?

(Sorry about the rant guys, it's just that as a very passionate person and aformer venue proprietor I am highly offended and angered by this. I wouldn't have dreamed charging anyone this much money for a couple minor issues like that. Especially if the people had just dumped $30k in my lap to throw them an amazing wedding).

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Molly,

I understand that and wish to point out that the laws here in Australia are virtually the same in those regards as far as liquor laws and liability (although vehicle insurance should cover this or the contract should state the venue takes no responsibility for vehicles left overnight, not fine customers when a car is left there). If anything the laws are actually more stringent here in australia, I have had many people come from the US and state how surprisingly strict our laws are. I think it's our government trying to clear up our reputation as a country of drunks

I still do not accept that the venue should be charging $300 for these little issues; there is not a venue in Australia that I know of that would charge this cost; from small B&B's all the way up to the most famous 6 star hospitality establishments and everything in between. My wedding party drank the venue dry of all their beer and nearly caused the venue to catch on fire twice during the reception from throwing cigarette butts. We did not have any extra charge at all for the damage or the litter (despite feeling absolutely terrible about it) and I think many would agree that's a lot more serious than a parked car and an alcohol bottle in a bin.

A $50 charge would still be excessive in my eyes, but far more reasonable. But $300?

(Sorry about the rant guys, it's just that as a very passionate person and aformer venue proprietor I am highly offended and angered by this. I wouldn't have dreamed charging anyone this much money for a couple minor issues like that. Especially if the people had just dumped $30k in my lap to throw them an amazing wedding).

But all of this was spelled out in the contract. If the couple didn't think it was fair, they should have negotiated or looked for a different venue.

 

[iLander]

But all of this was spelled out in the contract. If the couple didn't think it was fair, they should have negotiated or looked for a different venue.

Did it say $300? I'm just asking, since I can't find the post where OP said an issue results in a $300 charge.

If it said specifically $300, then I agree with you.

And I agree with jordy, even if it was spelled out, it's still ridiculous and the wedding party should have run away before getting involved with these shysters.

 

[telephone89]

I really disagree with your friend here - why is she being so passive aggresive? What if the other person doesnt pay? It doesnt sound like she asked them to pay, is just 'hoping' they do. I feel like if she wants them to pay, she needs to ask. Otherwise it sounds like she will never get over it, and she will be thinking they owe her.

 

[momhappy]

Molly,

I understand that and wish to point out that the laws here in Australia are virtually the same in those regards as far as liquor laws and liability (although vehicle insurance should cover this or the contract should state the venue takes no responsibility for vehicles left overnight, not fine customers when a car is left there). If anything the laws are actually more stringent here in australia, I have had many people come from the US and state how surprisingly strict our laws are. I think it's our government trying to clear up our reputation as a country of drunks

I still do not accept that the venue should be charging $300 for these little issues; there is not a venue in Australia that I know of that would charge this cost; from small B&B's all the way up to the most famous 6 star hospitality establishments and everything in between. My wedding party drank the venue dry of all their beer and nearly caused the venue to catch on fire twice during the reception from throwing cigarette butts. We did not have any extra charge at all for the damage or the litter (despite feeling absolutely terrible about it) and I think many would agree that's a lot more serious than a parked car and an alcohol bottle in a bin.

A $50 charge would still be excessive in my eyes, but far more reasonable. But $300?

(Sorry about the rant guys, it's just that as a very passionate person and aformer venue proprietor I am highly offended and angered by this. I wouldn't have dreamed charging anyone this much money for a couple minor issues like that. Especially if the people had just dumped $30k in my lap to throw them an amazing wedding).

But all of this was spelled out in the contract. If the couple didn't think it was fair, they should have negotiated or looked for a different venue.

Yup. Exactly.
This really isn't about what's fair/not fair. This is about a contract and if they didn't like the terms of the contract, they should have looked elsewhere (although, I bet most venues follow similar protocol/contracts).
Any update from your friend, nala? I'm curious if she heard back from her guest yet?

 

[missy]

I think what your friend did was very rude and if I were on the receiving end of her behavior I would rethink our friendship. It's interesting that she is willing to risk the friendship over a relatively small amount of money all things considered. I am sure the wedding cost much more than the fine and that she received money as at least some of her wedding gifts. I mean her behavior was ungracious IMO in every way by contacting her friend telling them about the fine and expecting to be paid back.

 

[jordyonbass]

But all of this was spelled out in the contract. If the couple didn't think it was fair, they should have negotiated or looked for a different venue.

Did it say $300? I'm just asking, since I can't find the post where OP said an issue results in a $300 charge.

If it said specifically $300, then I agree with you.

And I agree with jordy, even if it was spelled out, it's still ridiculous and the wedding party should have run away before getting involved with these shysters.

I'm interested to see how it is worded in the contract, because not only would it have to spell out the amount but a list and combination of incidents where extra charges are effective. It would have to say something along the lines of:
'If one of your guests leave their car on our property overnight and they also happen to leave an empty alcohol container in our bins which they did not buy from our venue, we will charge a total amount of $300 for both incidents'

I would then be asking for a breakdown of that $300 charge on a receipt for tax purposes as well, it might seem pedantic but you're more than entitled to ask for that documentation.

 

[nala]

I originally posted this thread to ask for advice about advice I was going to give, because I tend to be very opinionated, and sometimes, I like to hear other points of view. This thread has evolved into certain topics that I cannot answer, because I didn't want to interrogate my friend about her contract. I didn't suggest to her to dispute the contract, or to let me see the contract, or ask her specifics about which trash can the bottle of outside liquor was found in. I didn't do any of those because it was already a done deal, she had already paid the charges. I don't plan to ask her to show me the contract at this point, because much like the majority of you, when she asked me for advice, my instinct was to tell her that since SHE signed the contract, SHE should absorb the charges,( especially since in the grand scheme of 30K, 300 dollars shouldn't have been that big of a deal) and it was none of my business to scrutinze her contract. I don't agree with what she did, texting the guest, and it does make me wonder why she chose that route.

 

[jordyonbass]

Fair call nala, my apologies from derailing. To get it back on track, no I wouldn't consider charging the guests (as per my original statement until my career experience made me go into psychotic mode )

Again I apologize, I need to get my passion under control sometimes...