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

komodosp · 16-05-2018 6:30pm #1

My son attempted to go into an 18s movie (Deadpool), however he is 14. They wouldn't let him in, which I have no problem with.

However, they would not give him a refund either. Are they within their rights to do this?

My reason for asking is that they were happy to take his money (he bought the ticket in there, rather than online), so if they weren't going to let him in, then I would think that's when they should have stopped him (the same way an off-licence would simply refuse to sell him beer, not take his money then tell him he can't have any).

I looked up their terms and conditions, and they do say they don't offer refunds in this case for online purchases - this is understandable since they have no control over who buys online, and they ask you to read the terms and conditions before purchasing. But it's not like he was shown any terms and conditions when buying the ticket over the counter, they had the opportunity to deny him a ticket then.

Just to add, though, that they offered to allow him to watch another film within his age range. There was nothing he wanted to see so he didn't take them up on this

4ensic15 · 16-05-2018 7:51pm

They can't keep the money. He is a minor and can only form a contract for necessaries. It is theft, plain and simple.

Samuel T. Cogley · 16-05-2018 8:10pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

They can't keep the money. He is a minor and can only form a contract for necessaries. It is theft, plain and simple.

Unlike you to overreach. No they can't keep his money but it's not theft as that requires a dishonesty element. This is a contractual matter.

Fred Swanson · 16-05-2018 8:13pm

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15 · 16-05-2018 8:15pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Unlike you to overreach. No they can't keep his money but it's not theft as that requires a dishonesty element. This is a contractual matter.

It is dishonest to take money from a minor who does not have the capacity to contract and then refuse to honour the contract because of his minority but retain the consideration.

CeilingFly · 16-05-2018 8:23pm

If he bought directly from an employee, then they mis-sold the ticket and if anything, they should be disciplined.

If he bought from a ticket machine and claimed he was over 18, then its debatable whether there's a legal right to a refund, but it would be the right thing to do.

Samuel T. Cogley · 16-05-2018 8:24pm

CeilingFly wrote: »

If he bought directly from an employee, then they mis-sold the ticket and if anything, they should be disciplined.

If he bought from a ticket machine and claimed he was over 18, then its debatable whether there's a legal right to a refund, but it would be the right thing to do.

No contract can be formed - there's no question of the money being returned.

eringobragh · 16-05-2018 8:26pm

Is he 100% telling the truth - I worked in a cinema donkeys years ago and the trick at the time (and prob still is) was to buy a ticket for a PG film around the same time and sneak into the 18s flick :pac: I tried it myself in my youth truth be told

They are quite strict with selling to under 18s so if he looks quite young id say he chanced his arm and got caught

Fred Swanson · 16-05-2018 8:27pm

This post has been deleted.

komodosp · 16-05-2018 8:28pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

How did he manage to obtain a ticket?

It was sold to him over the counter by an employee, but a good half an hour before the film was due to start. Then, spent a bit of time outside, and closer to the start time, tried to get into where the screens are and was stopped.

Or he got some older kids to buy for him.

Not impossible (though I don't think so), but for the purpose of the question, let's say he's telling the truth.

I have to add, though that they offered to allow him to watch another film within his age range. There was nothing he wanted to see so he didn't take them up on this.

hullaballoo · 16-05-2018 8:36pm

The infancy of the purchaser is not really relevant as a fourteen year old has more than adequate capacity to enter a valid contract with a theatre.

It's a failure of consideration that would ground an action for money had and received. Unfortunately, there are problems enforcing the strict legal rights involved due to the small value of the claim.

4ensic15 · 16-05-2018 8:37pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

The infancy of the purchaser is not really relevant as a fourteen year old has more than adequate capacity to enter a valid contract with a theatre.

It's a failure of consideration that would ground an action for money had and received. Unfortunately, there are problems enforcing the strict legal rights involved due to the small value of the claim.

A minor only has the capacity to contract for necessaries. It can't be a necessary if he is too you to be admitted to the performance.

hullaballoo · 16-05-2018 8:39pm

Necessary or beneficial.

Cultural enrichment by way of film-going is beneficial. There are also no onerous terms that could vitiate capacity in a contract for a cinema ticket.

CeilingFly · 16-05-2018 8:39pm

Then its very very simple.

Here's the official line...

"It is an offence in Ireland for a cinema to allow entry to a film by someone below the classified age. (In other words, if someone under 18 is allowed view a film for over 18's). If you see this happening, you should report the offence to your local Gardai and they will initiate proceedings under the Censorship of Films Acts."

And whilst he was prevented from going in, they did sell him the ticket for a restricted film, so whilst they didn't let him in, they did sell the ticket and informing them you will make a complaint to the gardai under the censorship of film act will ensure you get your refund. - Even having the hassle of gardai calling for information is not worth the price of a ticket for the cinema management.

If its a chain cinema, a complaint to head office would also work.

Yawns · 16-05-2018 9:00pm

Just to point out, that Deadpool 2 is a 16 rating not 18. Might explain why the kid may have been able to purchase a ticket.

4ensic15 · 16-05-2018 10:04pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Necessary or beneficial.

Cultural enrichment by way of film-going is beneficial. .

Not if the minor is too you. It is deemed to be more harmful than beneficial. He certainly had no capacity to contract for something the film censor decided he shouldn't see, on account of his age.

hullaballoo · 16-05-2018 10:48pm

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not if the minor is too you. It is deemed to be more harmful than beneficial. He certainly had no capacity to contract for something the film censor decided he shouldn't see, on account of his age.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not spending my time arguing such a point. I am certainly not going to agree with the above and have us both being wrong as that benefits no one.

Minors have capacity to and do enter perfectly valid contracts for normal, everyday things all of the time. Going to the cinema is amongst those. Whether a fourteen year old seeing a film designated on a seemingly arbitrary basis to be for over sixteens is regarded as more harmful than beneficial is not really something I think has any bearing on the formation of a contract ab initio.

You disagree, that's fine, but it's a bit of a moot argument considering we both agree that the OP's child is entitled to their money back at law.

4ensic15 · 16-05-2018 10:55pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not spending my time arguing such a point. I am certainly not going to agree with the above and have us both being wrong as that benefits no one.

Minors have capacity to and do enter perfectly valid contracts for normal, everyday things all of the time. Going to the cinema is amongst those. Whether a fourteen year old seeing a film designated on a seemingly arbitrary basis to be for over sixteens is regarded as more harmful than beneficial is not really something I think has any bearing on the formation of a contract ab initio.

You disagree, that's fine, but it's a bit of a moot argument considering we both agree that the OP's child is entitled to their money back at law.

The general presumption is that a minor can't contract unless it is for a necessary. It cannot be necessary if authority has declared that it should not be availed of at all. The arbitrariness of that decision is irrelevant. Chronological age is used as a device to measure capacity in many situations. A person can drive a car before they can legally contract to buy one for example. The argument is not moot since the reasoning is relevant in a discussion and also in an argument with the cinema. It will only become moot when the money is refunded. In any case, since legal advice can't be given I am assuming this is a hypothetical situation. Therefore the point of the discussion is srgument rather than problem solving.

hullaballoo · 16-05-2018 11:20pm

You're incorrect. Remember that it is for the infant to repudiate the contract.

Why go there and enter into a discussion on capacity or otherwise when a perfectly good ground for suit avails itself in tort?

I paid for something and I didn't get it or any of it... an action for money had and received. Why bother with trying to repudiate a contract on the basis of incapacity when there is a perfectly available alternative?

DesperateDan · 16-05-2018 11:27pm

I like you guys

I feel like my IQ is going up reading these comments

Victor · 16-05-2018 11:44pm

It was, presumably a cash transaction. Hence it is a matter of the purchaser trying to obtain a refund, as opposed to a vendor trying to obtain payment.

It is not a crime for an under-age person to buy a ticket for a restricted film (they could be buying it for someone else), but it is one for the cinema to allow an underage person to watch.

Are contracts with minors void or voidable? I imagine there is a sliding scale in line with the level of necessity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_in_English_law

Thus, contracts for necessaries (goods or services deemed necessary for ordinary living) will always be legally binding

Can a cinema ticket be considered a reasonable necessity for a teenager? I think it is arguable that it is, it is no set of 14 waist coats or 35 year lease. It isn't a contract with 'particularly burdensome or unfair terms'.

fritzelly · 17-05-2018 12:31am

Quick look at cineworld for example - tickets are non refundable, I would imagine all of them do the same.

Doesn't matter the ticket was for a film with a certification above the purchasers age - they were refused entry to see the film so the cinema did nothing wrong in selling the ticket

ED E · 17-05-2018 12:45am

Is it not the case that a parent or guardian may accompany a minor to a film rated above their age(haven't checked the act)? If so it seems reasonable that a cinema would sell him the ticket.

Victor · 17-05-2018 1:50am

ED E wrote: »

Is it not the case that a parent or guardian may accompany a minor to a film rated above their age(haven't checked the act)? If so it seems reasonable that a cinema would sell him the ticket.

Not for 16s and 18s - each person needs to be that age.

donegal_man · 17-05-2018 2:11am

It was sold to him over the counter by an employee, but a good half an hour before the film was due to start. Then, spent a bit of time outside, and closer to the start time, tried to get into where the screens are and was stopped.

The bit in bold makes me wonder if the ticket was in fact purchased by someone older and then passed on in hopes that if they went in en masse there would be no attention paid. If the ticket was in fact purchased by an older friend then I doubt if the cinema has any liability to refund as all they did was enforce the legal requirement not to admit the minor.
Anyway if there are staff handling cash there's a better than even chance the desk is monitored by CCTV so the matter of who supplied the ticket should be easy enough to resolve.

Indricotherium · 17-05-2018 7:26am

hullaballoo wrote: »

I paid for something and I didn't get it or any of it... an action for money had and received.

The child did get and still has the ticket they paid for.

The ticket itself was valid and could have been redeemed by someone aged 16.

B-D-P-- · 17-05-2018 9:10am

Ok, so this is actually a made up scenario, (For me, Im sure it has happened)

What if I bought a concert ticket, lets say for eddie sheeran considering he's around.
And I was too drunk and they sent me away?
Or I was kicked out before and they wont let me in (Eg big night in nightclub)

Who's stuck with the loss, me or them?

again I honestly made this up, but just curious.

mirrorwall14 · 17-05-2018 9:16am

B-D-P-- wrote: »

Ok, so this is actually a made up scenario, (For me, Im sure it has happened)

What if I bought a concert ticket, lets say for eddie sheeran considering he's around.
And I was too drunk and they sent me away?
Or I was kicked out before and they wont let me in (Eg big night in nightclub)

Who's stuck with the loss, me or them?

again I honestly made this up, but just curious.

For a comparison to this though, would you not have to have bought the ticket on the night of the event while drunk and then refused entry to the event even though they sold you the ticket drunk?

4ensic15 · 17-05-2018 9:34am

mirrorwall14 wrote: »

For a comparison to this though, would you not have to have bought the ticket on the night of the event while drunk and then refused entry to the event even though they sold you the ticket drunk?

To avoid a contract entered into while drunk it has to be shown that the other party knew of the drunkenness and took advantage of it.

NUTLEY BOY · 17-05-2018 11:21am

In relation to the "necessities" argument see the Infants Relief Act 1874 and Nash -v- Inman [1908] 2 KB 1.

On the face of it this seems like a straightforward failure of consideration issue. The infant furnished his consideration and the cinema did not furnish it's consideration.

The cinema may be trying to argue that by virtue of Ts & Cs they have no contractual obligation to return the consideration paid by the infant. I don't see how they can stand up that argument if there is no contract and or the contract is unenforceable against the infant.

Whatever about any theft arguments you could certainly contend that there is unjust enrichment to the benefit of the cinema. The cinema cannot have it both ways.

Victor · 17-05-2018 11:39am

What if the cinema suffers a loss, as it might not be able to re-sell a ticket to a busy screening?

Indricotherium · 17-05-2018 1:22pm

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.

by8auj6csd3ioq · 17-05-2018 5:12pm

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

hullaballoo · 17-05-2018 5:28pm

Indricotherium wrote: »

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.

CeilingFly · 17-05-2018 6:51pm

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.

GM228 · 17-05-2018 7:10pm

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.

Samuel T. Cogley · 17-05-2018 7:11pm

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

GM228 · 17-05-2018 7:14pm

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

GM228 · 17-05-2018 11:34pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

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.

Robbo · 18-05-2018 9:13am

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

Pat Mustard · 18-05-2018 11:51am

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'?

Glass fused light · 18-05-2018 12:21pm

Pat Mustard wrote: »

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

ebbsy · 18-05-2018 12:28pm

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 ?

hullaballoo · 18-05-2018 12:31pm

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!

) so an offer of an alternative can be validly rejected in favour of a refund.

irish_goat · 18-05-2018 12:34pm

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.

Claw Hammer · 18-05-2018 6:02pm

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.

GM228 · 18-05-2018 6:45pm

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.

Victor · 18-05-2018 8:35pm

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.

Fred Swanson · 18-05-2018 10:52pm

This post has been deleted.

L1011 · 18-05-2018 11:09pm

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.

irish_goat · 18-05-2018 11:40pm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

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.

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

Comments