Montana
Montana presumes a kept deposit enforceable and makes the client prove it unconscionable, meaning one-sided terms they had no real choice about, but an 1895 statute still voids a sum set in advance unless the actual loss would be impracticable or extremely difficult to measure. The court asks whether a clause is one the weaker party could reasonably expect, or unduly harsh, so a plain-worded policy the client ticks before paying is on firmer ground than terms that surface after payment, and one that treats a no-show differently from a late arrival fits that test better than one that keeps the full deposit for any slip. The statute favors a deposit standing for a loss that is hard to measure in advance, like a no-show’s empty appointment.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in Montana?
The law’s word for a set sum agreed in advance is liquidated damages.
Montana’s statute, § 28-2-721, voids a sum set in advance for a breach unless the actual damage would be impracticable or extremely difficult to measure. In Arrowhead School District No. 75 v. Klyap, a teacher’s contract that set damages at 20 percent of salary for leaving after July 20, the Montana Supreme Court upheld $4,100 against a teacher who quit 2 weeks before classes and reset the rule: such clauses are presumed enforceable, and the party avoiding one has to prove it unconscionable. A clause is unconscionable when the weaker party had no meaningful choice about it and its terms are unreasonably favorable to the drafter, which turns on whether it is within the weaker party’s reasonable expectations or unduly oppressive; a court may also weigh whether it takes the same damages however minor the breach.
“under the rule we adopt today, liquidated damages clauses are presumed enforceable. Further, the party seeking to avoid the clause has the burden of proving the clause is unconscionable.” Mont. Code Ann. § 28-2-721 · Arrowhead School District No. 75 v. Klyap, 2003 MT 294, 318 Mont. 103, 79 P.3d 250
Showing your refund policy
No refund-policy disclosure statute was found. The parts index of the consumer-protection chapter (Title 30, chapter 14) and the section list of its Consumer Protection Act were read, and a search for a Montana return-policy posting law turned up none.
Body-art rules and money
Nothing about client deposits, cancellations or refunds in the Department of Public Health and Human Services body art rules (Admin. R. Mont. 37.112.102 to 37.112.167, as amended effective April 26, 2025). Their money is license and inspection fees, and their one receipt rule, for jewelry bought for first piercings, is about the jewelry’s specifications, not a client’s deposit.
Read: Admin. R. Mont. 37.112 (body art rule, rev. April 2025)
This page summarizes public law in plain language, with the source each point comes from, read at the source on 2026-09-23. It is not legal advice.