Analyst and wife misreads terms in contract and defames wedding company with false accusations

Introduction

• Client signed for Solemnisation Cinematography (Cine) & Photography (Pho), PreWedding Cine (Trailer) + Half Day WeddingDay Cine + two complimentary backdrop photo artworks. 
• Client claims for Principal Cinematographer (Han) coverage during solemnisation, however he had travel plans made beforehand, and explained that he would not have promised them to be there for their solemnisation, compromising the reputation of our company.
• ​Solemnisation overran due to bad weather. There were no mention of additional charges.
• Upon delivery of the two complimentary backdrop photo artworks, we were made to feel hostile for not further extending our compliments with another two backdrop photo artworks, using photographs not produced by us.
• Despite signing for Half Day WeddingDay Cine, couple claims it to be  Full Day . In consideration of how close we were to their WeddingDay, Han compromised the contract and with our available resources helped make the Full Day coverage happen, with no mention of additional charges.
• Having realised that Han was not shooting, but editing on that day, the Client called to either cancel for refund, or have us stick to the contract which was Half Day Cine with Han shooting. In the light of unhappiness between both parties, Han offered the option to trade refund of balance value  instead  of 80% late cancellation fees if the Client would suggest that they have financial problems settling the full payment. They were willing to do so twice.
• Client made a negative post in a private Facebook Page (reportedly Budget Brides). Please send us a screenshot of that to shed more light on these dark ways.
• We made a public statement in our defence on our Facebook Page and Instagram Post with no names mentioned.
• Client Shared our defence statement onto their public Facebook Profile, which gathered enough attention to motivate them to further post false defamatory accusations about us.

Preamble

• This blog's objective is to eliminate and expose some false defamatory accusations against us, on a per Case basis. Irrelevant contextual informations are left out for a clearer read if it does not concern the inaccuracy of the defamatory information presented. All information can be verified for authenticity under the eyes of the law.
• This blog does not serve to excuse us from the failure to ensure that clients read what they sign. It also does not excuse us from the unsatisfactory remedies we provided.
• Unfortunately irreversible damages have been done upon us. We seek to learn from this episode and provide clearer descriptions, while still providing our hassle free ('hourless') plans.
• Kindly see that we're exposing in defence, not offensively accusing.

---

Case 1

29 May 2019

Defence

---

Case 2

29 May 2019

Defence

---

Case 3

29 May 2019

Defence

Contract of 2cam x 1hr for solemnisation.

Overrun due to bad weather.
Total : 2cam x 2hrs

---

Case 4

29 May 2019

Defence

She deleted her message that agreed to continue the shoot 'according to the terms of the contract', at the same time as when our option for refund got sent.

We did not make any requests nor forceful demands.

---

Case 5

29 May 2019

Defence

After learning from our existing couple about a negative post in Budgetbrides facebook page, a private page that only allows access, to presumably female, brides-to-be, we posted this on our facebook page, and instagram account in our defence. No names were mentioned.

The groom shared our post onto this public profile with this message.

​This below shortly followed.

---