Review of Refund Demand & CLRA Notice

• Remove the stray slash in “\Wedding.”
• Use Order No. 69957-13 consistently; the release paragraph currently says “69957.”
• Replace “approximately $8,234.90” with the exact amount.
• Use “floor-to-ceiling perimeter draping” consistently instead of alternating descriptions.
• Change “amounting approx. $6,885.00” to “amounting to approximately $6,885.00.”
• Confirm that “Platinum Event Rentals” is the exact contracting legal entity.

Civil Code section 1782 requires certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, sent to the transaction location or the defendant’s California principal place of business. Email may supplement but does not replace the statutory mailing.

Identify the date and exact language of the order, promised or documented height, installed height, approximate gap, PER’s site access or measurement history, complaint date, and the exact partial-refund offer.

Exact measurements are more persuasive than “several feet.”

Section 3300 establishes the measure of contract damages; it is not itself the cause of action.

A contractual failure does not automatically establish an independent negligence claim. Negligent misrepresentation ordinarily requires a false statement of existing or past material fact, not merely a promise of future performance.

The theory becomes stronger if PER falsely stated that it had measured the room, confirmed the ceiling height, possessed equipment reaching the ceiling, or would supply drapes of a specific existing height.

The cited provisions fit reasonably well, especially section 1770(a)(16). The letter should expressly connect the representation to the purchase and loss.

Also confirm that the contracting and paying individuals are the relevant statutory “consumers.”

The letter cites sections 1689 and 1692 but does not address section 1691’s notice and restoration requirements. Counsel should either give express notice and a conditional restoration offer or avoid implying that rescission has already been effected.

PER may still argue that the clients received partial value from temporary use of some draping.

Section 1668 does not automatically invalidate every private limitation concerning ordinary negligence. Avoid saying any provision addressing “negligent nonperformance” is necessarily void.

“Emotional distress damages are likewise recoverable” is too certain. Windeler involved lost heirloom jewelry whose exceptional sentimental value was disclosed. Erlich later emphasized that emotional-distress damages are generally unavailable for ordinary commercial breaches while recognizing a narrow category where emotional concerns are the essence of the contract.

The photographers and videographers still performed services, and some material may be unaffected. A stronger theory focuses on retouching, re-editing, mitigation costs, and provable diminution in value.

The letter may state that the affected contracts totaled approximately $6,885 and $5,500, but should not imply that both complete invoices are necessarily recoverable.

Consider removing the statement that non-CLRA claims “may be filed at any time.” A calmer alternative is: “The statutory waiting period applies to the CLRA damages claim and does not waive, stay, or otherwise limit our clients’ other rights and remedies.”

The general fee theory is sound, but avoid implying automatic recovery of every billed dollar or duplicative fee awards.

Once delivery is confirmed, a calendar cure date would eliminate uncertainty. “Time is of the essence” is unnecessary.

The settlement label is acceptable because a genuine dispute and settlement proposal exist, but it does not create blanket confidentiality or make every statement inadmissible for every purpose.

Instead of “Spoliation will be raised with the court,” consider: “Failure to preserve potentially relevant evidence may result in our clients seeking all relief available under applicable law.”