The Ferry Notice: Choosing Between 'Refund' and 'Compensate'
Hypothetical editorial-language exercise, not legal advice or a statement of actual consumer rights. Harbour Line Ferries runs three vessels across a 6 km channel, carrying about 900 passengers a day. Last winter storms forced 11 days of cancellations and produced 62 written complaints, most about how refunds were handled. The company's operations manager has asked you, a temporary editorial assistant, to finalise the English text of a notice to be posted at both piers and on the website. The office assistant drafted the key sentence three ways:
A. Passengers will be given back their money if the boat does not sail. B. Passengers whose sailings are cancelled will receive a full refund. C. The company will compensate passengers for cancelled sailings.
The draft also contains the closing line 'We are sorry for the trouble.' The manager wants one sentence that is clear to occasional travellers, defensible if a complaint reaches a consumer tribunal, and consistent with the company's existing terms, which promise 'a full refund of the fare paid' and say nothing about extra costs such as taxis or hotels.
1. Choose between B and C for the notice. Justify the choice using denotation, collocation and legal exposure, and say what is wrong with A.
Read the worked answer
Choose B for clarity: full refund explicitly describes repayment of the fare already paid and matches the supplied company wording. Compensate passengers for a cancelled sailing is grammatical but broader and less precise about the intended remedy. A is understandable plain English, not inherently wrong, though cancelled sailing specifies the event more clearly than boat does not sail. The legal effect of either notice and any mandatory consumer remedies cannot be determined from vocabulary or from these fictional terms alone; silence about extra losses is not proof that they are legally excluded.
2. Rewrite the closing line for the posted notice, and explain one lexical and one pragmatic change you made.
Read the worked answer
Suggested rewrite: 'We apologise for the inconvenience this causes.'
- Lexical change: sorry for the trouble is conversational and vague; apologise for + the nominalised the inconvenience is the standard service register and names the specific harm (disrupted travel) rather than a generic 'trouble'.
- Pragmatic change: 'this causes' anchors the apology to the cancellations actually described above, so it reads as an acknowledgement of a real event rather than a boilerplate formula. That matters because the draft's phrasing, and the common variant 'any inconvenience caused', uses any, which minimises the harm and can sound like a refusal to admit that harm occurred.
- What to avoid: do not upgrade to 'we sincerely regret any distress suffered' - the mismatch in scale between a missed ferry and distress makes the notice sound insincere and, again, hints at liability beyond the fare.
3. One sailing moves from 07:00 to 09:00 on the same Saturday. The assistant writes: 'The 07:00 sailing has been delayed to 09:00.' Explain why this is a poor choice and write a better sentence for the notice.
Read the worked answer
The 07:00 sailing will now depart at 09:00 clearly states the revised departure time. The original wording delayed to 09:00 is also understandable and can be appropriate; it is not universally an error. Rescheduled may emphasize a planned timetable change, whereas delayed may emphasize a later departure. Choose terminology consistently with the actual supplied circumstances rather than claiming that one word is legally or grammatically forbidden.