Refunding the money does not get you out of a legal contract. The photographer was hired to perform a professional service. The bride sued to enforce the contract and won. The photographer was forced to perform the duties he was hired to do. He could have refused, but then she could have obtained a judgement against the business and potentially his home etc. if he wasn't incorporated. This was a big case back in the early '90's or so. The PP of A followed it very closely and reported heavily on it to members.

That is why in my contract it specifically stated that "limit any liability... failure to deliver videos for any reason to return of all payments made."

Hope that holds up in court (fingers crossed). If not, hope my $2M general liability insurance covers that (probably not).

Once again, for less than $1000 per wedding, and only a handful weddings every year, that alone would not support my equipment, much less any "premium" to support any kind of "professional" standards.

May be we should all just use a single cheapy DV cam with a single cheapy wireless lavalier (like the Samson Airline Micro whol set for $270), then maybe we have money left over for all the other nonsense.

Jeff

I guess I'm thinking that it would depend on the contract -- wouldn't clauses such as Law stated (in addtion to statements such as, "Not responsible for acts of God, malfunctions not due to user negligence," etc) protect the photographer?

I would love to read more about that case -- googling the subject matter didn't help; do you know where I can read more about it?

The PP of A published an article or two in their publication, about the case. To the best of my recollection it was in the early '90's, probably '91 or '92. Some states would not allow limitations, like you suggest, in a contract. The easy way around issues like this are "Errors and Omissions" policies. Some general liability business insurance packages might also cover these situations.