Fair or foul? Florida wedding venue refuses refund to woman after her fiancé dies

It is fair and rational and good that the wedding venue never canceled the deposits made by Tye Hinson. After the sudden passing of her fiance, Hinson was stuck with a $7600 fee for services that would’ve been rendered. She claimed she knows contracts but apparently she didn’t read the fine print on this one.

For a company to enter into a contractual agreement, both parties must comprehend the ramifications of such an agreement. That folks like Hinson say they knew what they were getting into with the contract, they fail to see that this is business. While it’s sad and tragic she lost her would-have-been husband so unexpectedly, the way the contract had been structured clearly pointed out she would be footing the bill in full.

As she continues to mourn, Hinson must realize the business ramifications associated with this particular case. A GoFundMe had been put in place and the owner of the venue, the Crystal Ballroom, Lukasz Rogowski is the top donor, currently, with $525. Is this the evil face of altruism sneering at the woman? Or is this some sense of poetic justice that has become a way of showing that Rogowski means no ill will or malicious intent?

This is why ensuring that you’re insured is so crucial to entering into agreements like this. It protects everyone from loss and hurt after a while. It creates within the vendor and the buyer a definition of trust and understanding.

The GoFundMe page is great, but it is not enough to bring back William Coney. Hinson knows that. It is, however, a sense of comfort to ease the economic stress that has arisen in her life. The way out of this is to just wait and know that reason is in control. Reason is the only way to settle these disputes, if you can call something like this an actual dispute.

It’s more just a misunderstanding and a failure on Hinson’s part to gain insurance for the Crystal Ball room rental. Her ability to become a contract sleuth after the fact is distressing. All of this business should have been covered beforehand. Her inability to see to it that her spot would be covered by insurance is a downfall that plagues many people. Hinson was not immune to common and just business practices.

Rogowski holds that other participants in weddings like cake designers have separate structures to their businesses. In his line of work, he’s tasked with clearing out space for wedding receptions, regardless of the fact the patron’s fiance may have died. It’s all about the money. He obviously shows compassion for her but the bottom line is the bottom line. By being a businessman, he had demonstrated how important it is to present to Hinson his role.

He made it clear that the deposit had been secured and was not refundable. This is not harsh. It’s business. This goes all the way up to whether Hinson will be able to gain enough funds to pay for the expenses. She had in her mind to continue down the path to righteousness. But she had, disappointingly, never fully comprehended the conditions of the contract. That’s just poor decision making skills. HInson seems like a rather intelligent individual who just failed to do her due diligence.

For her position as a woman who lost her fiance, she has gained the respect and sympathy from her donors who have raised over $4,000 from her donors. She will forever be noted as an extremely sad case. For her fiance to die amidst being engaged is a heavy burden to bear. If she comes out of this with the money, she might just be able to continue with her life and better understand contractual agreements.