If someone doesn't pay after a Chasuna

33055

Tue, Dec 27 2016, 9:26 am

amother wrote:

Of course there's a difference. A contract assumes basic trust. Each party meets its obligations.

If I sign a contract to pay for a service after it's delivered, I have promised to pay. I have signed on to an agreement. My word means something.

Once you give your word that you will pay, you have made an oral contract. A written contract simply memorializes that promise to pay; although, it is better proof.

Your word needs to mean something when you give it orally. A caterer justifiably should be able to count on you to pay if you agree to.

When I agreed to pay for my simcha without giving a deposit or signing a contract, I didn't acquire a loophole so as not to live up to my word. That caterer had exactly the same rights to payment for an oral agreement as if I signed a contract.

Tue, Dec 27 2016, 9:40 am

amother wrote:

However, many of these families are marrying off multiple children and don't have the means to pay. They sign because there is no choice.

Of course they have a choice! They can choose not to sign a contract promising to pay what they can't afford.

amother

Aquamarine

Tue, Dec 27 2016, 9:40 am

amother wrote:

Your word means something because you won't sign if you don't have the ability to pay. However, many of these families are marrying off multiple children and don't have the means to pay. They sign because there is no choice. If the caterer would wait for after the wedding the customer would simply say "I don't have. What should I do??" The food was served and the loss is the caterer's. This way, you need to figure it out. Catering isn't a tzedaka it's a business. No, the client is doing it to be bad. But he really has no money.

What do you mean no choice? If you can't afford that caterer, you don't hire him. If you have to beg or borrow, do it beforehand so you don't have to steal afterwards.

Of course I don't think a caterer is a tzedaka. I think a client who hires someone he can't afford IS doing it to be bad.

amother

Sienna

Tue, Dec 27 2016, 9:46 am

Many of these families can't afford even the cheap caterers.

This is their way of making sure the family borrows beforehand. If they would wait till after the family simply wouldn't be able to gather the sums.

I'm just saying I agree with the practice of not serving the meal until it's paid up. And trying to explain why the practice is necessary. Don't forget that many of these families are not comprised of just two or three children... they are big families

SixOfWands

Tue, Dec 27 2016, 10:30 am

amother wrote:

There are plenty of choices.

There are certain requirements for a Jewish wedding. Having a catered affair at a hall with dozens or hundreds of guests is not one of those requirements.

If you cannot afford a catered affair, have a quiet wedding with immediate family only, and go to a restaurant (or have mom cook dinner) afterwards. Or elope.

The first among my friends to marry made her own wedding dress, and served cake and punch to about 60 people. That's it. It was lovely, FTR, and she's still married, umpity-ump years later.

There's no shame in having a small wedding. There is shame in stiffing vendors.

ange

Wed, Jan 11 2017, 8:02 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

There are plenty of choices.

The first among my friends to marry made her own wedding dress, and served cake and punch to about 60 people. That's it. It was lovely, FTR, and she's still married, umpity-ump years later.

There's no shame in having a small wedding. There is shame in stiffing vendors.

I love this!! I can't imagine too many machatunim would go along with something like this, but so simple and sweet!!