Your Zimbabwe Wedding: How To Protect Your Brand

Exactly a year ago  i wrote on this blog about HOW TO PROTECT YOUR BRAND. Just this morning as i was going through the local paper (The Herald) i came across the  following article which i would like to share with you all.

-------

Caterer sued US$10 000 for spoiling wedding 

Court Reporter

A HARARE couple is suing a caterer for  US$10 000 for allegedly supplying a burnt cake and failing to complete decorations in time spoiling their lavish wedding held last year.
In a chamber application filed this week at the High Court, the couple — Effort Jera and Roslyn Mashava — claimed that they contracted the caterer Mrs Sunungukayi Mapuke to supply a six-tier cake and decorate facilities at their wedding.
However, Mrs Mapuke has also filed a counter-claim of US$4 700 in breach of contract.
The wedding was held on October 2, 2010 at an undisclosed venue in Harare.
According to the summons the wedding cake was supposed to have a shape of three-legged chrome pots in accordance with a picture the couple were shown in a sample magazine by the Highfield-based caterer — Mrs Mapuke.
The couple claimed they were charged US$360 for the cake and US$475 for decorations.
Mrs Mapuke, according to the Jeras had also agreed to supply the couple with a tent to accommodate 500 guests and a high table for 20 members of the bridal team, including a gift table.
But, on the wedding day, the couple said in their summary of evidence they they then paid a deposit for the services agreed upon.
Exactly a month before the wedding Mrs Mapuke, who operates her catering services from Western Triangle in Highfield, allegedly advised the couple that the available tent would not accommodate 500 guests seated on tables as they required but could only take up to 300 guests.
The couple had already booked 48 tables from another caterer — Dreams Hiring — a fact that they claim Mrs Mapuke was aware of.
The couple averred that that when they went to inspect the wedding cake they discovered that the shape was not in accordance with what they had agreed with the supplier.
They inquired and were told that the initial cake had collapsed and she failed to provide the three legged chrome shaped pots.
As such, the couple said Mrs Mapuke resorted to using artificial cake stands.
She allegedly promised to polish the icing and produce the required shape through an artificial stand.
“They decided to allow her to do the job but definitely not condoning the unprofessional manner in which she had conducted herself,” the couple stated in their papers.
She was asked to make two more cakes              for the pastors who would officiate at the wedding.
“She then charged US$60 for the additional cakes but on the wedding day they were                surprised the cakes were not in the agreed shape despite an undertaking by the defendant (Mrs Mapuke) that she would polish them                   to resemble the shape that the couple             required.
“The shock of their lives came when they cut the cake for the ceremony. The cake was burnt and the icing was peeling off. It was not even fit for a wedding,” the annoyed couple claimed.
Further they said Mrs Mapuke went on to put icing on a burnt cake to cover up for her poor work but risking “embarrassing” the couple by making them serve a burnt cake to their guests.
Nevertheless having discovered this in front of guests, the couple went on to cut the cake and served some guests as required by tradition, hurting their feelings and embarrassing them.
The couple further claimed that Mrs Mapuke failed to provide a top table that could accommodate the 20 member bridal team.
The decoration, they argue, was not up to standard tarnishing the image, dignity and reputation of the couple.
Therefore the couple is claiming compensation of US$360 as refund for the burnt cakes, US$200 for unfinished decorations, US$5 000 for damages for embarrassment of a substantial inedible and unsuitable cake.
They also said the cake, which they had been initially promised would have a life span of about five years started developing moulds within a few days.
The couple is also demanding a further  US$5 000 in damages for embarrassment of the small table that failed to cater for the bridal team.
However, Mrs Mapuke in her counter claim wants the couple to pay her US$4 700, citing breach of contract.
In her counter claim Mrs Mapuke stated that she demanded US$2 000 for breach of contract and emotional stress caused by the couple.
She is also demanding US$2 500 in loss of earnings saying she had lost business as a result of the couple’s failure to return 87 tiebacks and 12 cake stands after their wedding.
She said this has affected her business and she has to repay deposits to other clients.
She is also demanding a further US$200 to replace the tiebacks and cake stands.
In her defence, Mrs Mapuke who is representing herself, however, admitted that out of the couple’s three cakes only one was burnt.
She denied that she did not provide the top gift table, saying some speakers for the public address system were put on the table.
Mrs Mapuke said when guests arrived at the wedding they shifted chairs from the top table resulting in the shortage of chairs for the bridal team.
She also averred that it was not her fault that the company contracted to do the decorations failed to do so. 
She also said she received payment only three days after the wedding.
The Jera couple has instructed Jakachira and Company law firm to represent it in the lawsuit, which is yet to be heard by the High Court.

------

To Your Special Day and Happy 2011