Consumer Law, Warranties Mitigating Damages?

[Butterfly26]

This is in New York State.

We signed a contract to hold a Wedding Reception at a local party house, and gave a "non-refundable" $500 deposit. About a year ago ( early 2008), we breached the contract and canceled the event there. There was over a year's notice for the party house to attempt to re-book the date - the event was booked for July 2009.

When we asked about our deposit last year, she said it was non-refundable, but that we could use it towards a wedding reception on a different day within the next two years. This will not be happening.

If the party house has re-booked the date, are we entitled to our deposit back? Is there something called mitigating damages - since if they were able to re-book, they are not out any $$ (and in fact are gaining our $500)?

Also, if they did re-book, how can I go about proving there is an event being held there that night? All of my contact attempts to the party house have been ignored.

Thank you!

 

[dee_dub]

There is a duty to mitigate. That means if the hall is damaged by your breach of contract, they can't just be idle - they have to make reasonable efforts to rent it out.

The problem is, they're not seeking damages from you. If you had breached the contract and they were suing you for the full value of the contract, then yes, you would plead that they had a duty to mitigate, and any damages they were entitled to should be reduced by the amount they are collecting from the new renter. That's not what's happening here. You didn't exactly breach, you just terminated. They're keeping your deposit - and that's not damages. Your deposit is what you paid for the privilege of booking the hall. Maybe it's a fair price for them taking it off the market, in exchange for you having the security of knowing your venue is booked. Whether or not they mitigate their damages, they're entitled to keep the deposit.

In some cases a deposit might be considered to be punitive if it is excessively high, and you might be entitled to relief from forfeiture. I don't see any circumstances in what you've posted to suggest that is the case here.