Sometimes, life throws curveballs that leave you with tough decisions. When a wedding is called off because of betrayal, the last thing you want is to keep paying for things that no longer feel relevant.
That’s exactly what this Redditor faced after his fiancée cheated on him just weeks before their wedding. With no way to get his money back from the venue, he was left with a choice: lose the deposit or make the best of a bad situation.
What followed was a decision that has divided opinions, he chose to turn the reception venue into a Mario Kart-themed party with friends. Some are calling it a brilliant way to reclaim his joy, while others feel he’s wronged the venue. Scroll down to see why the aftermath of this decision has left him questioning whether he’s in the wrong.
A man keeps a paid-for wedding venue after calling off his wedding, leading to conflicting opinions
What the venue was legally allowed to do is often dictated by the contract you signed, not by how unfair the situation feels.
In many event bookings, especially weddings, it is standard industry practice for deposits to be non‑refundable once paid and once a contract is formed. Many venues require this to protect themselves from loss when blocking a date and turning away other potential bookings.
In the event and wedding business, deposit amounts usually range from 25 % to 50 % of the event price, and contracts often state very clearly that these deposits are not refundable if the event is cancelled, especially on short notice.
Cancelling close to the event date typically means the venue either cannot rebook that date or would have to turn away other bookings, which is why such policies are common.
Government and consumer protection authorities in some jurisdictions have specifically addressed this issue.
For example, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has advised wedding venues to make sure that their advance payment and cancellation terms are fair; unreasonable non‑refundable terms could be challenged under consumer protection law if they cause significant loss to consumers without reasonable justification. However, only a court can ultimately decide if a term is unfair.
From a legal perspective, then:
Non‑refundable deposits are generally enforceable when a customer agrees to them before paying, and the amount is proportionate to the venue’s potential losses, which wedding venues routinely argue they would suffer when a date is cancelled late. (lawpath)
Contract wording matters. If the contract states the deposit is non‑refundable and you accepted that, most venues are within their rights to keep the money.
In some cases, if a venue could rebook the date and still chooses not to refund (or refund part) of a deposit that is disproportionate to its actual loss, then the deposit term might be challenged as unfair, but this is something only a court or legal authority can determine. (gov.uk)
So legally, the man’s keeping of the venue deposit is supported by typical practice, assuming the contract clearly stated it was non‑refundable and he agreed to it. It’s also common for venues to hold onto the full amount if cancellation happens within a short window before the event date.
From an ethical perspective, things feel more complicated. Opinions vary depending on whether people focus on the letter of the contract or the spirit of the situation:
Those who emphasise contractual fairness argue that he acted within the terms he agreed to, and the venue enforced its policy as written.
Those who emphasise community impact argue that using the space for a party he planned after cancelling his wedding could arguably have deprived someone else of an event opportunity, the very people the venue could have booked in his place.
Legally, the main point is that he did nothing unlawful if he honoured all other terms of his agreement and did not breach the contract in other ways.
Ethically, people differ, but many consumer law guides note that businesses that enforce rigid non‑refundable terms, especially in emotionally charged situations like wedding cancellations, can face public criticism even if they’re technically in the right.
Here’s how people reacted to the post:
These commenters emphasize that the venue got greedy and tried to double-dip by keeping the money without offering a refund
This group agrees that since the venue didn’t refund the deposit, the poster was in the right to keep the venue for a fun alternative like the Mario Kart party
These Redditors believe that since the poster paid for the venue, they were entitled to use it however they saw fit, whether for a wedding or not
This group criticizes the wedding industry’s unfair policies and supports the idea of taking a stand against unfair business practices
So, what do you think? Did he do the right thing by keeping the venue, or should he have let it go for the sake of a future couple’s wedding dreams? Drop your thoughts below!
