RH Contract Question

How should I feel about this line of my RH contract:

'No outside entertainment, photographers, video persons, DJ's or other entertainers shall be allowed to participate in the affair unless ...RH.....in its sole discretion, approves of the participation by said outside person. The above not withstanding, no outside person shall be approved unless the outsider provides.....RH...with proof of $2,000,000 liability insurance certificate listing.....RH... as 'additional insured' no later than (2) months prior to the affair'.


Isn't that blacklisting? Is that legal? If the vendor I choose has that insurance coverage (which seems like ALOT to me but I am assuming is standard (?) ) , my RH still decides if they vendor is 'ALLOWED' on their premise???
So I have to check with my RH before I book ALL vendors?? Am I understanding that properly?

---

Posted by FutureMrsG

I would talk to your BM but it sounds like they are just covering their @ss. Most RHs require that vendors provide proof on insurance prior to the wedding.

---

I agree

To be on the safe side, I would try to get written clarification from the RH regarding how they interpret that clause.

To me, it sounds like they could tell you that one of your vendors is not allowed on the premises. If you have specific vendors you're considering, send a list to the BM and written confirmation that they would be allowed on the property.

I can understand the proof of insurance part...but the rest of it is worded very sketchy... was wondering if other RH's have it worded in a similar manner if at all. ... hmmmm....

My RH is a fairly new establishment... they have other locations, but still.

We had a similar clause in our RH contract. We brought it up before we signed our contract, and the RH explained that it was standard. They never refused a vendor, but they definitely need insurance.

Just bring it up to your RH and see what they say.

The insurance clause is standard and the policy limit isn't too high.

I would inquire about their language regarding 'sole discretion' and 'approved' and would actual request that it be removed (leaving in the insurance clause).

---

Posted by MrsDrinkh20

Thats pretty standard I believe...I know all of our vendors needed to have insurance...

---

I agree but there is no harm in getting clarification from your hall.

---

Posted by IrishCro

The insurance clause is standard and the policy limit isn't too high.

I would inquire about their language regarding 'sole discretion' and 'approved' and would actual request that it be removed (leaving in the insurance clause).

---

ITA.

I just check my contract and it does not say anything about vendors

I know insurance is for their safety but I agree with the others..ask about the 'final decision' is by the hall

---

Posted by IrishCro

The insurance clause is standard and the policy limit isn't too high.

I would inquire about their language regarding 'sole discretion' and 'approved' and would actual request that it be removed (leaving in the insurance clause).

---

I agree. Insurance seems standard but the other wording is kinda strange. I would talk to them and ask them to remove it.

---

Posted by MrsDrinkh20

Thats pretty standard I believe...I know all of our vendors needed to have insurance...

---

i agree

---

Posted by meg922

To be on the safe side, I would try to get written clarification from the RH regarding how they interpret that clause.

To me, it sounds like they could tell you that one of your vendors is not allowed on the premises. If you have specific vendors you're considering, send a list to the BM and written confirmation that they would be allowed on the property.

---

ITA... you want to be safe just in case...