Hyannis Marathon/half Canceled, No Refunds & No Reschedule

Nothing to see here. Paulie has been a jerk for years.I'd like to see the IRS take a crack at him. Guy has been skimming for years.

ish wrote:

That should be on the organizer. Maybe next year he'll realize he shouldn't pay the charities until he's delivered the service that people gave him the money to deliver.

There are only two industries that I know of where a company that has been paid for a service can simply decide not to offer that service and get away with it. They are the airline industry and the road race industry. It's not any more acceptable for road races than it is for airlines.

I understand that things happen. Probably it's not safe to run a race on Cape Cod this weekend. But that doesn't mean it's okay to cheatl the entrants. The race should have to either reschedule, offer refunds, or offer free entry into next year's race. Any would work, but doing nothing, or offering a pittance $15 discount, is not good enough.

Exactly. This is a risk the director takes. He needs to purchase cancelation insurance, or he needs to be willing to take the loss himself.

I work in real estate development. My company has $200K sunk in the project I'm managing right now. Any number of things could kill my project, and we'd be left with no way to recoup our costs. But that's the risk a business takes. It's always a gamble to spend money before you're at the closing table (or event day, in the case of a race), but if you're good at your job, you can manage the risk so that the successful projects offset the failed projects at the end of the day. You can also limit your exposure so that you never sink too much cash before you earn your fee at closing/race day.

RD should have been prepared for the risk one way or another. He obviously took on too much exposure if he didn't have the cash to pay out a refund for services that weren't rendered.

So I have been reading the various responses and am scratching my head. First, I am out 4 entries for the family so my out of pocket is over $200. I knew going in the weather was a risk but end of Feb half is a good time to see how the training is going in anticipation of Boston, plus the in-laws live nearby.

When I signed up I signed when it said something like "if the town tells us to cancel, we will cancel and not refund you." I had a choice. I could have decided just stay home and slog over the snow roads. I could've gone to the Hampton Half (good job on them to postpone a couple of weeks). I could have gone to Amherst for the 10m.

I signed my name which I take very seriously, not from a legal sense, but believe when I give my word it means something. I paid $200 and hoped for a family weekend. It didn't work out. Hopefully, there will be other races and other family weekends.

I agree with anyone who believes in alternative types of racing. I love them.

I don't know Pauli but have run a few events he directs. His race administration is perfectly fine so whether you like him or not he does his job well. And he told you before you paid what the deal could be. And you paid anyway. Next time follow the buyer beware advice.

For all of us the weather continues to #$% and making both moods and training a real challenge. Try to get some extra miles in, do some core and stretching. And then take your frustration out the next time you hit a race.

mr. obvious wrote:

You have demonstrated you have no understanding of what a force majuere clause is or how it operates. It does provide some protection for sellers or providers of service in the event of circumstances beyond their control but it certainly does not in any situation allow the seller to simply keep the money without providing the service.

Companies cannot ding your credit as a result of VISA reversing charges. They would have to dispute that through the VISA arbitration procedure as provided in their merchant agreement.

You're just very, very wrong about the law. It depends on the substantive law of your state and the particular terms of the contract, but in general, every force majeure clause will allow the seller to retain funds they've already expended. In this case, that's very likely most if not all of your fee. In many cases, the clause does indeed allow the seller to keep all the money you've paid them, even if it represents an apparent windfall. The rationale for this rule is obvious: There's an opportunity cost involved in contracting to provide a good or service. If they've promised to do something for you, they've lost the opportunity to do it for someone else. It's not "fair" that you pay for something you can't receive, but it also wouldn't be "fair" for a company to lose the profit (and sunk costs) for a service that they were unable to provide through no fault of their own. The contract simply assigns the unfairness risk to you. I really don't understand how you can find this so unfair. You're not insane, under the age of 18, or incompetent, so why shouldn't you be held to your promises?

As for dinging your credit, companies do it all the time, regardless of whether they have "right" to do so. Just because you're in the right doesn't mean that someone else can't screw you in the real world. The CFPB is starting to show some attention towards credit reporting, so maybe thing will eventually shape up, but for now, your smart move is to always pay and then dispute. Just like with taxes.

It was a pleasure to read your fair and kind words. All the best to you.

Credit to you.

But the race director should not be let off the hook because you happen to be a nice guy.

As the poster who works in real estate said, a successful business is one that can absorb the occasional loss while still keeping its head above water on aggregate. This RD should be setting up all of his races such that if one or two are canceled, he's made enough from the others that he can afford to provide the refunds, take the hit, and move on.

The notion that somebody shouldn't have to give a refund because it would sink them for this particular event is based on the false notion that a given RD only has one chance to make money. That's not the case. Even RDs who only put on one race a year put on that race year after year. If, for example, your race churns out a $10,000 profit for three years running, is it really fair for you to say, "I can't offer a refund this year because it would leave me $4000 in the hole?" I say no! That person is still up $26,000 on aggregate.

Every successful business has to be able to absorb the occasional loss. Why should road races be any different? Why should they be alone in being able to say, "I have to make money on every single event I put on, and if it looks like I'm not going to make money, I get to bail on my end of the deal that my customers and I agreed on?"

PTF wrote:

No...that's not a financial loss. The money was gone when you spent it. It's not an investment. That should be obvious to you...mr obvious.

.

By your logic if I order a book from Amazon and they don't deliver the book then you are not out anything because the money went out of your account the day you ordered.

Like I said, strange world some of you people live in...

ish wrote:

Every successful business has to be able to absorb the occasional loss. Why should road races be any different? Why should they be alone in being able to say, "I have to make money on every single event I put on, and if it looks like I'm not going to make money, I get to bail on my end of the deal that my customers and I agreed on?"

Races aren't alone or entitled to any special privilege. Every business is the same in that they get to form contracts to allocate risk. This particular road race has a contract assigning the risk of bad weather to the runner. The RD isn't bailing on his agreement; it's the customer who's violating the agreement by trying to get a refund to which his contract does not entitle him.

800 dude wrote:

Races aren't alone or entitled to any special privilege. Every business is the same in that they get to form contracts to allocate risk. This particular road race has a contract assigning the risk of bad weather to the runner. The RD isn't bailing on his agreement; it's the customer who's violating the agreement by trying to get a refund to which his contract does not entitle him.

I'm saying that that's not a fair or legitimate way to do business. Runners may sign that contract, but that doesn't make it fair or right. Perhaps by the letter of the law the race is within its rights to keep the money and offer no refund; indeed, you and other posters seem confident that that's the case, and I'm not in a position to dispute it. But I can say that many things the law upholds are not right or proper, and that we as runners should collectively demand of our RDs that they play the game right. Seeking refunds by laying out the unfair structure of these contracts, and discussing this on forums like this and on social media platforms is part of the process of applying that pressure.

800 dude wrote:

ish wrote:

Every successful business has to be able to absorb the occasional loss. Why should road races be any different? Why should they be alone in being able to say, "I have to make money on every single event I put on, and if it looks like I'm not going to make money, I get to bail on my end of the deal that my customers and I agreed on?"

Races aren't alone or entitled to any special privilege. Every business is the same in that they get to form contracts to allocate risk. This particular road race has a contract assigning the risk of bad weather to the runner. The RD isn't bailing on his agreement; it's the customer who's violating the agreement by trying to get a refund to which his contract does not entitle him.

Is the contract binding if one party has not fulfilled their obligation? Per my (admittedly limited) understanding of contract law, the contract is void if either party fails to deliver the promised consideration or service.

Isn't the contract void in its entirety if the provider does not provide the service?

I recall situations where runners have successfully sued races for some sort of damages incurred during the race even though the entry forms had waivers supposedly releasing the event from such claims. It would seem that just because runners agree to something when they enter a race doesn't always make that agreement valid.

You sound like a loser.

Hey PTF if you are the race director, give the money back you scumbag.

Is the contract binding if one party has not fulfilled their obligation? Per my (admittedly limited) understanding of contract law, the contract is void if either party fails to deliver the promised consideration or service.

Isn't the contract void in its entirety if the provider does not provide the service?

Bingo. Valid contracts require consideration from both sides.

HRE wrote:

I recall situations where runners have successfully sued races for some sort of damages incurred during the race even though the entry forms had waivers supposedly releasing the event from such claims. It would seem that just because runners agree to something when they enter a race doesn't always make that agreement valid.

Yes. I work in an industry that commonly requires all customers to sign a waiver that releases the provider from all liability--including that caused by gross negligence on the part of the operator. There is not a jurisdiction in the country that will uphold that as a valid contract but we have them all sign it anyway.

Not everything can be contracted for.

mr. obvious wrote:

Is the contract binding if one party has not fulfilled their obligation? Per my (admittedly limited) understanding of contract law, the contract is void if either party fails to deliver the promised consideration or service.

Isn't the contract void in its entirety if the provider does not provide the service?

Bingo. Valid contracts require consideration from both sides.

How do you interpret the waiver clause "I also understand that there are no refunds regardless of circumstances including acts of god . . ."? Frankly I don't see how that could be any more clear. Perhaps it is you who live in a strange world where one signs a contract and then disputes the terms later.

It probably makes good business sense for the organizer to offer some consideration for those affected by the cancellation, but he is under no apparent legal obligation to do so. We can argue about the appropriate magnitude of that consideration but in the absence of insight into the finances of the race it's all speculation.

I may very well be. I just don't seek relief from a court or from the race director because I made a fully informed decision, that didn't work out. No one would have signed up had we anticipated the kind of winter we are in.

If people feel burned, don't race any events put on by promoter but don't blame him for being forced to do what he told you could happen.

Monkeys typing wrote:

mr. obvious wrote:

Bingo. Valid contracts require consideration from both sides.

How do you interpret the waiver clause "I also understand that there are no refunds regardless of circumstances including acts of god . . ."? Frankly I don't see how that could be any more clear. Perhaps it is you who live in a strange world where one signs a contract and then disputes the terms later.

It probably makes good business sense for the organizer to offer some consideration for those affected by the cancellation, but he is under no apparent legal obligation to do so. We can argue about the appropriate magnitude of that consideration but in the absence of insight into the finances of the race it's all speculation.

You dont seem to understand that there are certain conditions that must be met in order to form a valid contract.

The race organizers finances don't have anything to do with that.

Monkeys typing wrote:

mr. obvious wrote:

Bingo. Valid contracts require consideration from both sides.

How do you interpret the waiver clause "I also understand that there are no refunds regardless of circumstances including acts of god . . ."? Frankly I don't see how that could be any more clear. Perhaps it is you who live in a strange world where one signs a contract and then disputes the terms later.

If the contract is invalid, the clause is invalid, right? How can the clause you cite still be in force if the contract has been voided in its entirety?