"Looking to let go of a lunch banquet at Caroline Mansion (at The St Regis Singapore) on March 1, 2025, Saturday. $10,000 will be absorbed on my end. Only for serious couples, thank you," reads the pitch on one post.
Another promises cheaper table rates and a slew of perks from The Westin Singapore.
These posts, on discounted wedding packages at hotels here, have transformed online platforms like the Singapore Brides forum into a bustling marketplace for couples trying to offload their banquet bookings.
They include packages that come significantly discounted — one such post offered a 20 per cent discount on a $44,200 banquet for 250 people at The Westin Singapore's Grand Ballroom.
Those who sell their packages told The Straits Times that they were driven to do so after wedding plans went awry and they found themselves facing cancellation fees that could sometimes amount to tens of thousands of dollars.
However, lawyers said these fees, which can kick in the moment a banquet agreement is signed, could be deemed unreasonable and unenforceable under Singapore law.
Wedding agreements seen by ST indicate that these fees can range between 30 per cent and the full cost of the banquet — depending on how close the cancellation is to the date of the wedding.
For instance, The Westin Singapore imposes a 100 per cent fee if the event is cancelled six months before the actual date. InterContinental Singapore applies the same penalty three months before the event, while Jen Singapore Tanglin charges the full amount immediately upon signing.
In absolute terms, such fees can range from $20,000 to over $50,000.
Hotels said that charging such fees is standard practice in the industry, but added that they generally exercise flexibility in these cases.
Charges are waived if a replacement couple is found to take over the booking. That said, in the case of InterContinental Singapore, if the hotel finds a replacement booking, the fee remains. Its spokesman pointed out that this is because there is no guarantee the space can get rebooked, especially for last-minute cancellations.
Andy (not his real name) tried to sell his banquet at a five-star hotel in 2024 on the Singapore Brides forum. He faced a penalty fee of over $25,000 despite giving the hotel over a year's notice.
He did not manage to sell his wedding package and eventually negotiated the cancellation fee down to just over $10,000.
Andy, who is in his 20s, said he thought the fees were unreasonable when he booked the wedding package but accepted them anyway as he thought he was getting a good enough deal for the banquet.
Another man in his 20s said he tried to offload his $60,000 banquet at a five-star InterContinental hotel three months before the date of the wedding in December, but was unable to find a buyer willing to pay a reasonable price for the package.
He negotiated with the hotel to convert it into a corporate networking event, and ended up paying about half of the $60,000.
The man, who declined to be named, noted that there was a limited pool of buyers and said it was difficult to find someone willing to take over on the exact date. He had one offer of $10,000, which he rejected.
Lawyers whom ST spoke to said these penalty clauses could be unenforceable under Singapore law.
Tang Jin Sheng, director of WhiteFern LLC, pointed out that steep cancellation fees could be seen as deterring parties from cancelling a contract rather than reasonably compensating the innocent party for losses.
This is especially so in cases where hotels are given advance notice of cancellation of more than 12 months, which may give them sufficient time to look for replacement clients, said Mr Tang. He added that such penalties could be challenged for unreasonableness under the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
Tang cited the power imbalance in these agreements, where consumers often lack the bargaining power to negotiate terms. He suggested enacting laws to better protect consumers.
Lawyer Chia Boon Teck of Chia Wong Chambers noted that while customers are contractually obligated to accept the forfeiture of hefty deposits, the hotel could appear to be "profiteering" if it successfully rebooks the venue with another customer later without incurring any loss.
Such fees have been in the crosshairs of the consumer watchdog, the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case), for some years.
In 2015, Case singled out three hotels — Furama RiverFront, Riverview Hotel and Jen Singapore Tanglin — for their "unfair and excessive" cancellation policies, in a bid to prompt hotels to reconsider their wedding cancellation penalties.
Case said then that it was holding talks with the Singapore Hotel Association (SHA) to push for industry guidelines on such fees.
Both Furama RiverFront and Jen Singapore Tanglin defended their policies and said this reflected the difficulty in securing last-minute bookings.
A spokeswoman for Jen Singapore Tanglin said: "In the event of a cancellation, we work closely with clients to explore solutions, including finding a replacement booking for the reserved date. This approach helps us minimise losses while supporting our clients in navigating changes to their plans."
She added that the hotel would evaluate requests for waivers on compassionate grounds on a case-by-case basis.
Case said it received 49 complaints regarding wedding banquet cancellations between January 2021 and December 2024.
Its president Melvin Yong said the complaints were generally from consumers requesting to postpone or cancel their wedding banquets due to various personal reasons or Covid-19 restrictions, and facing significant cancellation fees and forfeited deposits.
It did not respond to questions on the outcome of talks with SHA.
SHA's executive director Margaret Heng said the intent of the talks was to work on a set of guidelines for the industry.
"However, after extensive deliberations, the conclusion was that since it involves members' commercial policies, SHA is in no position, as a trade association, to regulate individual hotels' legal terms with guests, be it for room bookings, dining reservations or catering events," she said.
[[nid:692953]]
This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.
