Liars but acquitted: it pretended to die to avoid serving a wedding banquet

within hours of the conclusion of wedding , the responsible for the catering company sent an e-mail the bride pretending that he and his son had died for not serving an banquet that already had been collected, a lie that the Justice recognized but that is not punished is not considered to be a scam.

Because, in spite of affidavit and does not provide the catering service or return the money to the bride and groom , the Provincial Audience of Madrid will absolve in a sentence, to which has had access Efe, a crime of fraud, which the Prosecution asked for a year and three months in prison. The father and son. The ruling is appealed.

Lied in your wedding

In June of 2015, Sorina and Leonardo were delegated the responsibility of the banquet to the company Catering Modena

The story is less surreal . In June of 2015, Sorina and Leonardo delegated the responsibility of the banquet to the company Catering Modena , with which it entered into via a verbal contract, that was never put on paper, a price of 1.980 euros, VAT included.

As had been agreed upon, the couple ahead of 75% of the price of 1,500 euros, the current account agreed. And in this way they thought that they could sleep peacefully. Nothing could be further from the reality.

Everything was normal when the day before, the child took a tent of tarpaulin on the place where they would celebrate the feast on September 5, 2015. But the surprise/distress was not long in coming.

Sorina woke up on the most important day of your life with an email from the catering company -written by the father-that he announced that no one would be able to take charge of their banquet because the leaders were killed in a terrible accident at their facility and that they were going to return the money.

Sorina woke up on the most important day of your life with an email from the catering company -written by the father-

The ruling says the following: "Jesus, from the account of the company, referred to Sorina an e-mail, in which, forgetting the truth, communicated to him the impossibility of complying with the agreement reached, because he himself and a son of hers had died in an accident occurred on the premises of the company". And here ends the story of proven facts, with lies uncovered.

Although the day of the ceremony and after reading the email with the terrible news, the bride and groom failed to talk with the company, Leonardo achieved the next day that someone takes the phone: a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus, and told him that at that very moment they were being buried, the father and son.

Leonardo achieved the next day that someone takes the phone: a man who claimed to be the brother of Jesus, and told him that they were being buried father and son

After months without news of the company nor the refund of the money, Sorina and Leonardo discovered by the internet that Catering Modena had starred in other similar episodes. At least six couples were part of a group on Facebook that had been united with this cause, alleging an alleged scam.

But the judges do not see enough evidence of a scam, because "the deception arises when the author simulates a serious purpose of contract when, in reality, only seeks to take advantage of the benefits undertakes to the other party", this is the money, "taking advantage of the trust and the good faith of the injured person, with a clear and strict mood initial breach of what was agreed".

Sorina and Leonardo discovered by the internet that Catering Modena had starred in other, similar episodes

That's according to the judges was not what happened because "the defendants performed acts that, implying for them a cost, reveal a beginning of the fulfillment of the provision agreed", in reference to the tent that was sent, "and they are incompatible with the purpose of not complying", which requires the scam.

And although they say that "there is no doubt that the service cáterin was not provided" and that it "sought to justify by a mendacity", what happens is that there is not sufficient evidence that the will not to comply would be to hire, just "a mood come upon them not to carry out the provision".

According to the judges The defendants performed acts that, implying for them a cost, reveal a beginning of the fulfilment of the delivery as agreed upon, in reference to the tent that was sent

in Addition, the "maneuver misleading" aimed to justify the failure to comply was "back to the acts of disposition wealth of the complainant, and therefore, no causal connection with them."

Nothing says the statement of the reason for the sit-in, or the lie, or the death failed, beyond to pick up what was said by the father, who decided not to serve the banquet because the couple owed him "about supplements" -the tent - and gave "very good impression", which was denied by the woman, who refused orders extras.

Nothing is known either of the destination of that tent after using it in the garden of one of the parents-in-law, where he held the treat. Although yes, there are two irrefutable facts. A few were married. Another are liars but innocent.