New Hampshire
New Hampshire enforces a kept deposit that was a reasonable estimate, at booking, of a loss that is hard to prove, but it takes a second look after the breach. Even a deposit that was reasonable at signing fails when the shop’s actual loss turns out to be minimal and easy to prove, so a shop that refilled the slot the same afternoon is on weaker ground keeping the whole deposit. A deposit near the realistic cost of a no-show, and a policy that credits the deposit toward a rebooked appointment, fit that second look better than a flat forfeiture.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in New Hampshire?
The law’s word for a set sum agreed in advance is liquidated damages.
No New Hampshire statute governs liquidated damages in a service contract; under the common law, the rules courts build case by case, a valid clause meets 3 criteria: the anticipated damages are uncertain or hard to prove, the parties meant to settle damages in advance, and the amount is not greatly disproportionate to the likely loss. The New Hampshire Supreme Court then takes a second look after the breach. In Holloway Automotive Group v. Giacalone (2017), a car buyer’s agreement not to export the car for a year, backed by $15,000 in liquidated damages, it reversed a ruling that the clause was unenforceable, sent the case back, and said a sum reasonable at signing still fails if the actual loss is minimal and easy to prove. The rule comes from Shallow Brook Associates v. Dube (1991), a land sale where the sellers kept $150,000 in deposits because the record did not show actual damages that were easy to work out and grossly disproportionate to the deposits.
“even if the liquidated sum is reasonable in light of the anticipated or presumable loss, the provision will not be enforced if the actual loss to the party is minimal and easy to prove.” Holloway Automotive Group v. Giacalone, 169 N.H. 623, 154 A.3d 1246 (2017) · Shallow Brook Associates v. Dube, 135 N.H. 40, 599 A.2d 132 (1991)
Showing your refund policy
No refund-policy disclosure statute was found in the chapter list of Title XXXI (Trade and Commerce), the full list of unlawful practices in RSA 358-A:2, or the Department of Justice’s Consumer Sourcebook guide. The Sourcebook’s own example is a store that refuses refunds, and it says a court will very likely enforce that policy if the store discloses it fully and accurately to customers.
Body-art rules and money
Nothing about client deposits or refunds in the body art statute (RSA 314-A) or the Body Art Rules (Plc 600, readopted effective September 21, 2026); their money is license fees. The closest is the ethical conduct standard, Plc 606.09, under which a licensee deals with clients with honesty and integrity and does not advertise misleading claims; it says nothing specific about client payments.
Read: Plc 600, Body Art Rules · RSA 314-A
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.