The bride decided to charge “no-show fees” to guests who were absent from the wedding (5 photos)

One Australian bride has sparked controversy online with her idea to charge wedding invitees who don't show up for a fee. Its size will depend on how many guests the bride will miss at her holiday and how many seats in the restaurant she has already paid for in advance will be empty.





The Australian said that back in July she sent her friend an invitation to the wedding and received consent, but in December - a week before the significant event - she received a message that her friend would not be able to come.

"I'm so sorry, I know we said yes and the wedding is next week but we just can't afford to travel interstate at the moment," her friend wrote. “I hope you understand me, I would love to attend your holiday.”



The bride asked the hosts of the famous Australian podcast She's on The Money if it was acceptable to ask this friend for a "no show fee", explaining it this way:

“There was a week left before the wedding, and I had already confirmed the number of guests to the restaurant and paid the remaining amount (the advance was made earlier), which amounted to $18,600.”

The newlywed wanted to know the best way to ask a person to return the amount that was spent so that he could attend the wedding.

“Over the past week, ten guests who had previously confirmed they would come have now canceled, saying it was too expensive for them to travel from one state to another,” she said. “I'm trying to cover the cost of their seats, otherwise I'll basically be wasting $2,000.” Can I ask them to cover these costs themselves?





The situation became the subject of heated debate. Hundreds of people were divided in their opinions: some thought that the bride was right, others that her request was indecent and tactless.



“Isn’t it proper etiquette to send a gift to a wedding you can’t attend? Of course, if you cancel your visit at the last minute, you could pay for a seat rather than send a gift. Or give something decent,” the defenders said.

"You can not do it this way. You would have paid for the place anyway, whether the person came or not; in terms of your budget there is no difference. After all, if they came, they would not expect to pay upon arrival,” critics objected.

“It’s not fair to punish someone if they simply can’t afford a long trip,” others argued.

What do you think?