Business Contracts Legitimacy of 'Comparable' Service Options

[Dragonfish]

We are a Wyoming based company and our main income is from leading photography tours. We have an upcoming tour that was supposed to take place 1/2 the week in one location and 1/2 the week in a second location. For reasons beyond our control, we were denied a permit to operate in the protected area that was supposed to make up the second part of the trip, though the agency had previously told us we'd be eligible for the permit.

We are trying to offer potential solutions to our clients however we can't find one thing that everyone will accept. We would like to make an executive decision and offer two options. One, the second half of the week will now take place in a nearby area that offers as similar as possible photography opportunities. Two, if option one does not work for you, we are willing to post a credit for the second half of the week to a future tour of your choice.

We have people demanding their money back, however, we have a no refund policy and stress to everyone that they need to purchase travel insurance. I used to work for a vacation home rental company. Guests would rent a particular home. However, if something happened and that home became unavailable (damage; the owner decided they wanted that week in the home, etc.), then the company would move the guest to a 'comparable' home. I feel that we are offering two different 'comparable' options. Is this legal and legitimate?

Thanks for your help!

 

[army judge]

We are a Wyoming based company and our main income is from leading photography tours. We have an upcoming tour that was supposed to take place 1/2 the week in one location and 1/2 the week in a second location. For reasons beyond our control, we were denied a permit to operate in the protected area that was supposed to make up the second part of the trip, though the agency had previously told us we'd be eligible for the permit.

We are trying to offer potential solutions to our clients however we can't find one thing that everyone will accept. We would like to make an executive decision and offer two options. One, the second half of the week will now take place in a nearby area that offers as similar as possible photography opportunities. Two, if option one does not work for you, we are willing to post a credit for the second half of the week to a future tour of your choice.

We have people demanding their money back, however, we have a no refund policy and stress to everyone that they need to purchase travel insurance. I used to work for a vacation home rental company. Guests would rent a particular home. However, if something happened and that home became unavailable (damage; the owner decided they wanted that week in the home, etc.), then the company would move the guest to a 'comparable' home. I feel that we are offering two different 'comparable' options. Is this legal and legitimate?

Thanks for your help!

Yours is NOT yet a legal issue.

It could become one, if you don't negotiate.

You might want to reconsider your NO REFUND policy.

It won't help in the instant case, but it could help in the future.

As a newer or smaller venture, flexibility and customer service are two of the most important things you practice.

Your service isn't required and customers can take their money elsewhere.

Okay, if I were faced with this dilemma, I'd satisfy everyone.

That means, ask each customer what they want to make them happy.

That'll serve you far better than some ridiculous policy that is too rigid.

You may lose a little money now, but you'll gain far more in the future.

Do you want to drive your customers away?
Do you want them to tell their friends, family, and co-workers how difficult you were?
No, you want them to recommend you for years to come!!!!!