[mommab3]

I hired and signed a contract with a wedding photographer for my wedding, which took place 7/19/08. I paid him a down payment for the package which included pictures, a back drop, pre-wedding, a full day, and the pictures was suppose to be ready in one week. Come the day of the wedding. He did not take any pre-wedding photos of me, at the reception the back drop was only down for 10 mintues and no one took pictures on it. And the reception was from 6-midnight he told me at 8 he had to leave at 8. Came a week after the wedding the pictures were not ready and I have not heard from him. I called him every other day for a month and he never answer or returned any of my calls. I called him from another number and he called me back and stated that the pictures were damage. What is the amount I can sue him for? And what if I win and he still don't want to pay?

[excon]

Hello mommab:

You can sue him for the amount you paid him - nothing more (although I recognize that you'll NEVER have your wedding pictures). If he doesn't pay the judgment, you can try to collect by seizing his bank accounts, and if he has a job, by garnishing his wages. But, collecting ain't easy - especially from a real flake, which this guy is.

excon

[Justice Matters]

Under the circumstances you described we would sue for both a refund and an additional amount for the loss of the wedding photographs.

Whether you will get the later will be up to a judge. One of the questions a judge may ask is what steps did you take to try to obtain or take alternate photographs (ie. Getting pictures from guests or designating one of your friends as the photographer after 8pm).

[Fr_Chuck]

Normally you can only sue for the actual loss, the money you paid for the photos.

You can try more but seldom if ever is anything beyond actual cost. And if you do win more, they may appeal it to a higher court.

Ifyou win, and they don't just pay, you will have to find their money, find their bank accounts and find a way to garnish it.

[JudyKayTee]

Under the circumstances you described we would sue for both a refund and an additional amount for the loss of the wedding photographs.

Whether you will get the later will be up to a judge. One of the questions a judge may ask is what steps did you take to try to obtain or take alternate photographs (ie. getting pictures from guests or designating one of your friends as the photographer after 8pm).

In the US this is a contract matter so the OP can't get any sort of punitive damages, anything above the failure to perform dollar amount.

It may very well be different in Canada.

[Justice Matters]

We are in no position to contradict our learned American friends but we are puzzled that breach of a contract in the U.S. cannot result in damages beyond the cost of the contract itself. While we acknowledge that in some cases breach of contract does not warrant anything other than a refund we can theorize other cases where substantial damages could result from a breach.

For example, a concert promoter hires a band to perform at a concert. The band does not show up and the concert promoter ends up giving ticket refunds to the attendees. The cost of the refunds, the rental of the concert hall, and the projected profit from the event each exceed the cost paid to the band.

In the case posted by mommab3 the contract was for the production of some unique photographs which had a high sentimental value and cannot be replaced (or cannot be replaced easily). The loss of the wedding photographs is likely to be perceived by many as a greater loss than the monies wasted on an inept photographer.

While we recognize the subjective value of wedding photographs and the inherent difficulty in ascribing a value to them there are nevertheless many forms of property that have a value beyond their constituent parts that is wholly dependent upon what others place as the value. For example, a piece of art can be worth far more than the canvas and paints used.

It is also possible, although not explicitly stated, that certain scenic locations were specifically rented for the sole purpose of having photographs taken at them. In the absence of the photographs the costs associated with paying for the use of certain scenic locations is also lost.

We do not seek to contradict or debate our fellow posters (whom we respect greatly) but merely put forward our final opinion on the matter which, admittedly, comes from our Canadian experience.

[excon]

Hello Justice:

You're right. Damages CAN be awarded beyond the contract amount if they're demonstrable. However, I believe my colleagues are referring to punitive damages only, and they aren't awarded in breach of contract matters as a matter of law.

Our northern neighbors have always been nicer than we are... Of that, I can personally vouch.

excon