A bride to be who had her dream shattered by the Covid-19 lockdown in March 2020 to get married at her dream venue, has been engaged in a legal battle to get her money back from the venue where she was due to get married.
Roxanne Maher was due to get married on March 28, 2020, at the Avianto wedding venue in Muldersdrif. But two days prior to the event, the government announced a national lockdown. By then, Maher had already paid the full amount of R63,000 to the venue.
Although she had signed a binding agreement with the venue that the amount would not be returned to her if she did not abide by the contract, Maher said matters were out of her hands as due to unforeseeable circumstances, she could not go ahead with the wedding.
The venue tendered to give her a voucher for the amount, but Maher wanted the money back.
She earlier unsuccessfully turned to the Magistrate’s Court in Mogale City in a bid to get her money back. Maher now turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, to appeal that judgment.
As she could not get married at the venue during the national lockdown, Maher, meanwhile, got married three months later at home affairs in front of five people.
She said the contract she signed with the initial wedding venue stated that a postponement of the function by her would amount to a cancellation. Furthermore, in terms of the contract, a cancellation by the venue for any reason not attributable to the default of the appellant (the bride) would result in a full refund. Should her function be cancelled for any reason, then any refund would only be made once the date has been rebooked by another function.
Maher said that the venue cancelled her event due to no fault of her own, but due to a force majeure event (unforeseeable circumstances), namely the lockdown. She further states that the cancellation was not documented in writing, and she asserts that she is entitled to a full refund.
She demanded that the contract price be paid. However, the respondent retained the R63,000. According to Maher, this is prejudicial to her and results in the venue being unjustly enriched at her expense.
She approached the court for confirmation of the cancellation of the contract and payment of the money.
The venue, which opposed the application, stated that the wedding could not take place due to the lockdown, and they offered a postponement to the appellant without penalty. They tried to arrange an alternative date but could not agree, after which the appellant requested a full refund.
According to the venue, they offered her a voucher to be used at a later function of her choice. This is not in terms of the contract but an alternative solution to accommodate their clients, it was said.
The magistrate who earlier turned down the bride’s claim to have the money paid back found that the inability to perform on the part of the venue was temporary. The respondent took it upon themselves to assist their clients in choosing alternative dates to hold the function, he said.
The magistrate also found that the event's postponement cannot be seen as a cancellation of the contract in its true sense. The respondents tried to assist with a postponement date, waived the penalty, and offered a voucher when no date could be agreed upon, he said.
As for the claim of unjustified enrichment, the magistrate said the plaintiff had to prove that the payment of the monies was in terms of the contract concluded and that the defendant was unwilling or unable to perform its obligations in terms of the contract.
The respondent did not deny the receipt of the monies but was willing to perform their obligation in terms of the contract by tendering a voucher for the exact amount to be used by the appellant for a function of her choice. Since she was offered a voucher, her claim failed, the magistrate said.
The high court, on appeal, however, took a different stance. Acting Judge WJ du Plessis ordered in favour of the bride and ordered the venue to pay back the R63,000 she had paid to it.
“ A voucher instead of the money paid is not a return of the performance. The appellant was thus correct to claim back the money based on unjustified enrichment,” the judge said.
WhatsApp your views on this story at 071 485 7995.
Pretoria News
zelda.venter@inl.co.za