Can you refuse to pay back deposit at your own discretion? Let's say a business provides some service/activity to a customer and charges them a $100 deposit on top of the service costs. This deposit is to cover damages or other actions that negatively affect the business. In the contract between the business and the customer, can the business set out that the deposit is paid back at their own discretion? Or is the business required to set out specific criteria in the contract for paying back the deposit, which could be legally challenged? Obviously withholding a deposit incorrectly could result in negative PR, but this question is purely about the legal aspect. Answers for any jurisdiction would be interesting, but specifically trying to find out for Ireland / the EU. Additional question: If damages exceed the deposit, can the business request more money from the customer?
can the business set out that the deposit is paid back at their own discretion? Generally speaking, the business is allowed to do so. What matters is that at the formation of the contract the customer be properly informed about that &quot;entitlement to discretion&quot;. The duty to specify criteria for refund of the deposit and most of all provisions in contracts are premised on the parties' freedom of contract. By contrast, in contexts of markets which are heavily regulated, legislation might constrain the concepts for which a customer may be billed and/or the corresponding amounts. Likewise, the term &quot;deposit&quot; might be statutorily defined in a way that it outweighs or strikes the business's discretion. If damages exceed the deposit, can the business request more money from the customer? It depends on the specific terms of the clause and whether it is altogether definite or conclusive in that regard. In turn, the specificity of the terms mostly depends on (1) how careful or skilled the draftsman is, and (2) the parties' bargaining power.
What does your contract with your client say? What does your contract with your sub-contractor say? Typically the client contract will not specify HOW the work gets done, just the deliverable(s), the price and the liability. Unless your client contract says otherwise, it's perfectly legal for you to farm out the work. It's also perfectly fine for you to deduct the cost of the sub. As long as that's profitable the IRS will have no problem for that at all: that's a perfectly normal business practice. Things are a bit more complicated if you farm out at a loss since that could be interpreted as a tax evasion scheme. However, as long as it's reasonable, that's fine. If there are defects in the work product, the client will come after you, regardless of who did the work. It's generally your responsibility to fix the issues, cover damages etc. You, in turn, can try to recover your damages from the sub, but that depends on the nature of the contract you have with the sub.
To me this seems analogous to failing to report a bank error in your favour, which amounts to theft in england-and-wales. I wrote an answer about that here. See that answer for the details but briefly there are five elements to establish under section 1(1) the Theft Act 1968: Dishonesty (section 2) Appropriation (section 3) Property (section 4) Belonging to another (section 5) Intention to permenantly deprive (section 6) As pointed out in the comments, there is a separate offence of abstraction of electricty in section 13 which only has the following elements: dishonesty, use of electricity, and lack of due authority. The courts have also held that electricity cannot be considered &quot;property&quot; for the purposes of the Theft Act (Low v Blease [1975] 1 WLUK 325). Arguably this offence is not commited here as you had due authority (permission from the supplier) to consume the electricity, however I will have a look later to see if I can find some case law on this point and edit it in if I find anything. With that said, &quot;property&quot; includes choses in action (section 4(1)). Choses in action are intangible property which can only be recovered by enforcing a right rather than by taking possession. In the case of a bank error, the resulting bank balance is a chose in action and the crime of theft is committed on that basis. In your scenario, the right to be paid for electricity you consume is a chose in action belonging to the supplier. Although I'm not aware of any case law specifically on this point, it seems to me that depriving the supplier from its right to be paid could satisfy the requirement of appropriation of property. The other elements of theft, as in the case of bank errors, are easily established here. Note that you won't be saved by &quot;if and when the company does discover its error, I have no problem with paying the arrears&quot;. This is because of section 6(1) of the Act which states: A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. Even if you eventually pay for the electrity, your intention was not to do so if they didn't notice. Note also that it is not necessary that there is a contractual requirement to notify the supplier of their mistake. Such a requirement can arise under common law (e.g. A-G's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1984] 3 All ER 369, elaborated in my other answer). You didn't specify which part of the UK and this answer may not be applicable in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
A retainer can be either pre-payment for services (a deposit) or it can be a payment for a promise of availability (a "true" retainer). A lawyer may ask for pre-payment to avoid extending credit to the client. A lawyer might want to do this if he's dealing with a new client or for some other reason thinks that he might not be paid. This type of pre-payment is refundable if the client does not use all of the deposit amount. A "true" retainer is much less common, but still exists in some circumstances. A "true" retainer is paid purely to guarantee the availability of the lawyer; any work done by the lawyer will be billed separately. A client might want this to reserve a particular lawyer for some work in the future. The client would pay the retainer amount and the lawyer would promise not to take on any conflicting work that would prevent him from representing the client. This type of payment is usually non-refundable. Those are basically the differences between the two usages.
If there is no written contract, why not just respond to their invoice with a letter stating you do not intend to pay because the trial was free so you don't owe anything. If they attempt to collect, make the same case to the court. Then the burden is on them to prove otherwise. Which, if there is no written contract agreeing to pay an ETF, might be difficult for them to do. Be careful about surreptitiously recording phone calls without the other party's knowledge or consent. In some jurisdictions this is illegal and can subject you to criminal prosecution.
Unfortunately, your relative is more in the wrong here First, the COVID situation does not change anyone's rights and obligations under a contract (see What effect does an event like the current Covid-19 pandemic have on contractural obligations?). So the landlord (through their agent) is obliged to provide the property and your relative is obliged to pay the rent and to occupy the premises (most residential leases contain a requirement for the tenant to live in the premises and not leave it empty). Your relative (through you) has indicated that she will be in breach of her contract. The agent has considered her position and has offered two (IMO generous) alternatives: Allow her to continue with the lease without taking possession providing the rent is paid. To release her from her obligations under the contract and return the rent. To put it in perspective, if your relative simply "walked away", she would be liable for the rent until a new tenant was found and, if that new tenant was paying less rent than she was, the difference for the duration of the lease plus the costs of finding a new tenant - advertising, agent's fees (usually 1 month's rent) etc. Now, the landlord has an obligation to minimise your costs so advertising the property could just be prudent. However, if they lease it when your relative's contract has not been properly terminated then it is they who are in breach. Surely they can't take the rent and offer to re-let the property at the same time? Surely they can. What they can't do is relet the property without properly terminating your relative's lease. Would they even be entitled to retain the deposit under these circumstances? Absolutely. The deposit is to cover their losses if your relative breaks the lease - as she has indicated she is going to do (this is called anticipatory breach). Finally, I'd rather not go down this route but is there any protection for my relative for not being forcefully 'evicted' - since she's paid the deposit, rent - and those haven't been returned? Having never taken possession, she is not being evicted.
You owe money if there is a contract obliging you to pay. Whether you receive what you pay for (e.g. services) only affects your stance when suing for non-performance/damages; your obligation to pay still stands until the court decides it does not (or there is a mutual agreement to discharge the contract). It is irrelevant whether the original payment method still works or not. If it does not but you still owe money — you have to pay. The ability to turn the credit card off is just a handy feature. It does not affect your contractual obligations in any way except for when the terms explicitly provide for it (like automatic cancelling subscription when payment method fails).
They provide a snail- and e-mail way to end the contract here. This will not eradicate the €50 that they say you owe, but you can sort that out separately. That email address might also respond to inquiries about the validity of the charge. At any rate, they also give a link to online dispute resolution per Art. 14, para 1 of the EU Online Dispute Resolution Regulations. GDPR does not give one the right to be deleted so as to avoid an existing liability.