Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Do a cinema have a right to withold a refund if the patron was too young?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭ Indricotherium


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

    the cinema did not furnish it's consideration.

    The child was furnished with the ticket he paid for.

    Any person over the age of 16 could have redeemed it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,124 Ellis Wailing Tutu


    Is the cinema allowed to have T&C's which deny a refund in all circumstances.


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,709 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ hullaballoo


    The child was furnished with the ticket he paid for.

    Any person over the age of 16 could have redeemed it.
    This is not the case. For a couple of reasons, consideration failed in this case. The contract is not for the purchase of the physical ticket but it is to view the movie.

    That another person could use the ticket to gain entry is irrelevant too because of privity of contract.

    This thread has a little bit of everything thrown in, considering it looked like a relatively straight-forward query at the outset. :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,379 ✭✭✭ CeilingFly


    I'd love to see two barristers argue this out in a debate - as above, it was such a simple original post and you'd think it would be such a simple answer and instead you have opinion on age limits, ticket purchasing, contract law for minors and entitlement to refund.

    Quite fascinating for the lay person and brings memory of family arguments between my brother and father (both at the time in legal arena) over fairly minor issues but with differing views and heated exchanges. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Great discussion so far.


    Isn't it true that whilst a minor prima facie can not make a contract* that any contract a minor does make is in a fact a valid contract, i.e it's a voidable contract as opposed to a void contract which the minor can then repudiate with the exception of contracts for necessaries which are binding.

    *Except contracts prohibited by statute/common law (which are void as opposed to voidable) such as for example contracts for the repayment of money loaned, supply/exchange of goods and accounts stated as per the Infants Relief Act 1874 as mentioned by Nutley Boy.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,687 ✭✭✭✭ Samuel T. Cogley


    Is this not an illegal contract and therefore void though - thinking along the lines of selling alcohol to a minor.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭ GM228


    CeilingFly wrote: »
    I'd love to see two barristers argue this out in a debate

    Looking at some of the posters it seems your wish has already come true :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Is this not an illegal contract and therefore void though - thinking along the lines of selling alcohol to a minor.

    Illegal contracts are not necessarily automatically void or unenforceable unless the type of contract itself is expressly void as a result of statute as per the Supreme Court in the Quinn vs IBRC [2015] IESC 29 case, there's a lot of reading in it, but the main point to take from the case is that unenforceability is no longer absolute.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Robbo


    Just to add further spice to the mix, isn't there a Quistclose Trust case involving theatre tickets?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭ Pat Mustard


    As regards getting his money back, small claims court fees are €25, which is more than the cost of the ticket.

    Seems unfair to be left with a remedy that costs more than the damages.

    Is there some Ombudsman with 'teeth'?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭ Glass fused light


    As regards getting his money back, small claims court fees are €25, which is more than the cost of the ticket.

    Seems unfair to be left with a remedy that costs more than the damages.

    Is there some Ombudsman with 'teeth'?

    Why would there be an ombudsman.

    Would the 'clean hands' principle not also apply here and the dad could use this as a learning lesson of not breaking the law and expect the people who would get into trouble to be open to a resolution which is beneficial to him.

    The child bought a service by misrepresentation and was given an alternative replacement so sale of goods and supply of services remedy is repair, replace or refund at the sellers discretion apper to apply.

    As to be fair to the cinema they offered a culturally enriching age appropriate replacement product which was declined, i suppost they could offer to give him a over 16 ticket which is valid in 2 years time


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,034 ✭✭✭ ebbsy


    Well you can buy a ticket online, then collect from the machine at the cinema.

    Or somebody bought it for the young lad.

    If one of those things above happened then the cinema would be in the clear ?


  • Administrators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,709 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ hullaballoo


    Clean hands only applies to actions in equity. In fairness, unjust enrichment has gotten a mention in this thread but aside from that, most of the discussion has avoided chancery jurisdiction.

    The repair/replace/refund option under the SOGASSA is not at the seller's discretion.

    The contract was to view a specific performance (wahey! :D) so an offer of an alternative can be validly rejected in favour of a refund.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 5,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭ irish_goat


    OP has stated the child bought the ticket then hung around "a good 30 mins before the film was due to start". The cinema did their duty by refusing the child entry into the screening but would have been unable to resell the ticket. If a large group of children all did the same and all requested refunds the cinema could find themselves with a half empty theatre and be considerably out of pocket.

    For comparison, if I buy a plane ticket and get refused at the departure gate because I have no passport, I have no recourse for a refund. The airline have no duty to check whether or not I have the the legal right to fly at the time of purchase (and why should they?). Similar situation in my mind.

    OP, my advice to your son would be "you pays your money and you takes your chance". We've all been there and it sometimes works, it sometimes doesn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,254 ✭✭✭ Claw Hammer


    irish_goat wrote: »
    OP has stated the child bought the ticket then hung around "a good 30 mins before the film was due to start". The cinema did their duty by refusing the child entry into the screening but would have been unable to resell the ticket. If a large group of children all did the same and all requested refunds the cinema could find themselves with a half empty theatre and be considerably out of pocket.
    If that is the case the cinema should make sure when selling the tickets that they only sell to persona of the legal age. If shops can be made do it before selling cigarettes then cinemas can do it.
    Regarding your airline ticket, it is made a condition of purchase that you must have your passport when you present to fly. You breach a condition in your contract when you present without a passport.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,619 ✭✭✭ GM228


    Robbo wrote: »
    Just to add further spice to the mix, isn't there a Quistclose Trust case involving theatre tickets?

    Is there? Surely that would be more appropriate where moneis paid are put into a separate account for specific purposes such as loans for property purchase for example.

    I would say a Quistclose is rarely if ever applicable for goods or services in a commercial setting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 77,992 ✭✭✭✭ Victor


    I saw the film, not really suitable for a 14 year old. It is 16 rated: http://ifco.ie/website/IFCO/ifcoweb.nsf/SearchViewFilm/3B6544083A04D99C8025828200410D31?OpenDocument&OpenUp=True
    irish_goat wrote: »
    For comparison, if I buy a plane ticket and get refused at the departure gate because I have no passport, I have no recourse for a refund. The airline have no duty to check whether or not I have the the legal right to fly at the time of purchase (and why should they?). Similar situation in my mind.
    They ask you for your passport number.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,863 Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 59,645 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    Victor wrote: »
    They ask you for your passport number.

    One, admittedly large but under 50% of total traffic out of Ireland, airline does, and at check-in only (edit - others do when travelling to a country with API rues - which does make up a large enough amount of traffic due to Spain, Portugal, USA, Canada being amongst those)

    Most don't. Basically none do at time of purchase.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 5,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭ irish_goat


    If that is the case the cinema should make sure when selling the tickets that they only sell to persona of the legal age. If shops can be made do it before selling cigarettes then cinemas can do it.
    Regarding your airline ticket, it is made a condition of purchase that you must have your passport when you present to fly. You breach a condition in your contract when you present without a passport.

    Shops do that because you can immediately use a packet of cigarettes as soon as you pay for them. We're talking here about a cinema ticket bought for a showing in 30mins time but it's possible to buy a ticket well in advance of showing. You could buy a ticket for a film when you are 17 but the screening might occur after your birthday. Absolutely right that a condition of purchase of an airline ticket is that you must have the correct documentation when boarding. Is it not reasonable to argue that a condition of purchase of a cinema ticket is that you are of legal age to view the film when you arrive at the screen? Be that screening in the next half hour or next month.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    irish_goat wrote: »
    Is it not reasonable to argue that a condition of purchase of a cinema ticket is that you are of legal age to view the film when you arrive at the screen? Be that screening in the next half hour or next month.

    If you are not of legal age you can't make a contract therefore any conditions of the proposed contract are not binding.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 5,560 Mod ✭✭✭✭ irish_goat


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    If you are not of legal age you can't make a contract therefore any conditions of the proposed contract are not binding.

    The child was not of legal age to view the film. I'm not sure the law applies to the purchasing of a ticket.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    irish_goat wrote: »
    The child was not of legal age to view the film. I'm not sure the law applies to the purchasing of a ticket.

    That is the whole point of this thread. If the child is too young to view the film then the child doesn't have the capacity to contract for a ticket to watch the film.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭ NUTLEY BOY


    The child was furnished with the ticket he paid for.

    Any person over the age of 16 could have redeemed it.

    Just to clarify my point.

    The furnishing of the ticket was not the rendering of consideration.

    Consideration would have been rendered if the infant had been allowed in to the film. As he was refused entry - post purchase of the ticket - he was specifically denied consideration by the cinema.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,577 ✭✭✭ Indricotherium


    NUTLEY BOY wrote: »
    Just to clarify my point.

    The furnishing of the ticket was not the rendering of consideration.

    Consideration would have been rendered if the infant had been allowed in to the film. As he was refused entry - post purchase of the ticket - he was specifically denied consideration by the cinema.

    Is there a [case] for a purchased valid ticket for a service does not = consideration?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    the age rating of a film is a rating for admittance to see the film, not the ticket purchase. The argument could be made that the minor could purchase a ticket as a gift for somebody overage / purchase on behalf of somebody. The person refusing admission was likely not the person who sold the ticket.

    It's done this way to stop older people purchasing tickets for kids to allow them to see a film thats above their age rating. Similar enough 16 year olds have been denied entrance to music festivals and left with tickets , in those cases they tend to sell them in the car park etc...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    the age rating of a film is a rating for admittance to see the film, not the ticket purchase. The argument could be made that the minor could purchase a ticket as a gift for somebody overage / purchase on behalf of somebody. The person refusing admission was likely not the person who sold the ticket.

    It's done this way to stop older people purchasing tickets for kids to allow them to see a film thats above their age rating. Similar enough 16 year olds have been denied entrance to music festivals and left with tickets , in those cases they tend to sell them in the car park etc...

    Tickets are generally non-transferable since the venue reserves the right to refuse admission.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,407 ✭✭✭✭ Eric Cartman


    4ensic15 wrote: »
    Tickets are generally non-transferable since the venue reserves the right to refuse admission.

    by that logic should people showing up completely drunk be refunded ? the kid didn't meet the admission requirements.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭ 4ensic15


    by that logic should people showing up completely drunk be refunded ? the kid didn't meet the admission requirements.

    A person showing up drunk would have had the capacity to contract when sober. The cinema couldn't take money from a drunk and then throw him out.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement