It was about a sea voyage, love, a wedding promise – but in the end in court it was about the vile money: A married couple wanted to celebrate a symbolic wedding on a sea voyage and have the event captured in pictures. The glossy pictures of happiness cost almost 1,400 euros. The couple believed that the sum must be included in the wedding package. She wasn’t, ruled the Munich district court and brought the couple from cloud nine back to the hard ground of legal reality.
The couple from Saxony-Anhalt had booked a one-week cruise with a Munich operator for June 2022. Apparently they wanted to underline their vow of loyalty, so they booked the “Classic” wedding package for 889 euros, which included a symbolic wedding on board the ship. There was a Photoshop on the floating luxury liner, where the wife bought a “storybook”, a photo measuring 40 by 60 centimeters, and a picture “Wedding Emerald” for the impressive price of 1,399.95 euros.
The couple believed that the wedding package included the photos. That’s why it now filed a civil lawsuit to reclaim the sum. The wedding participants argued that this was paid “without legal justification”.
The court saw the matter more soberly: “Contrary to the plaintiff’s opinion, analogue and digital prints of photos are not included in the wedding package that he booked and paid for,” says the judgment. The passage “Photos of the ceremony” in the contract for the wedding package should be interpreted to the effect that the organizer takes photos of the ceremony, “but a separate order is made afterwards with additional costs. No other interpretation is possible, as it is in the agreement No information was given regarding the number or format of the photos.
And the wife didn’t want normal prints either; she had ordered and bought “special, complex photo products” in the shop. The fact that these should also be included in the “Classic” package is “in no way indicated” in the agreement. On the contrary. In an email, the organizer explained that a one-hour photo service was included in the service, and there was never any mention of deductions.
The district court did not see any “surprising clause” in the agreement. It is not unusual for a photographer to be hired for special events. And “according to general life experience,” photo prints would later have to be paid extra. According to spokesman Martin Swoboda, the district court’s ruling is legally binding.