were spoiled in the darkroom.

When Mr. Luciano and Mrs. Louise Aicardi of Smith's were married last July, they hired Photographic Associates Ltd. to preserve the moment.

But none of the pictures turned out.

"Not of the pre-wedding, the church, or the reception afterwards,'' said lawyer Mr. Jai Pachai, who represents the Aicardis. "How do you put a value on the memory of a wedding?'' The couple recently filed a Supreme Court writ against Photographic Associates and company president Mr. Art Simons.

Mr. Pachai said the damages were difficult to quantify and for "an undetermined amount.'' Mr. Simons said the Aicardis wanted $15,000.

An associate shot four rolls of 36-exposure colour film, but the film got stuck in the developer, Mr. Simons said.

"I've been photographing for 10 years, and nothing like this has ever happened before,'' he added.

"In any business you're going to have some goofs. We've had other goofs, but not as bad as this.'' Mr. Simons said he empathised with the Aicardis, but felt they were being unreasonable.

"We know we were at fault for messing up,'' he said. "We tried to get it rectified.'' "We were willing to do a whole stack of things. Reshoot the wedding, flowers, a horse and carriage, a fancy album, but they want to take us to Supreme Court and sue us for $15,000.'' He said the settlement he offered was worth about $5,000, but the Aicardis wanted him to pay to fly relatives to Bermuda from England and America and cover the cost of their stays.

Mr. Simons said it was difficult for photographers to purchase insurance against such disasters. Retail film processors used a disclaimer that said if the film was damaged, they were only obliged to give the customer another roll.