aggressive lawyers, potential clients...

[bleeds]

Need advice & suggestions -

I have...or rather HAD these potential clients, both lawyers, say they love my work, they want to work with me, etc,etc, however...

they rather nastily requested my fax number so they can send me IN-DEPTH REVISIONS to my contract, which they are demanding I change. I told them don't intend to. Then after a series of emails, I just told them someone else booked for their date. I decided I didn't want to work with them.

Tell me I'm not crazy...

[Scarlett Nic]

You're not crazy!

I wouldnt want to work with them either.
Nic

[Toogy]

You're not crazy! I would have probably done the same.

[mmahoney]

Good decision .. if they are giving you this much trouble before the wedding imagine the grief they may cause later.

Lawyers like to run the show .. your best bet is to let them rum a show somewhere far away from you.
Mike

[tlc]

never let clients run your business. wise decision.

[GertS]

It's an business agreement between two - the couple and the photographer - so both can refuse if not accepting the conditions the other is asking for.

You could have asked them if they pay the costs of an lawyer of your choice for checking their changes too. Who tells that their changes don't have backdoors for their advantage, you as non lawyer will hardly be able detecting these.

Refusing the work under such conditions is legal, otherways you can be called be "crazy".

[tlc]

Refusing the work under such conditions is legal, otherways you can be called be "crazy".

there is nothing 'legal' about it - the photographer never has to take on a client they do not want.

[GertS]

there is nothing 'legal' about it - the photographer never has to take on a client they do not want.

I know that a photographer is not a doctor who has to "help". However, how many doctors are refusing help due to fear being sued later, especially in the USA. :( But that's OT.

[Padawan Dad]

You made the right decission. They sounded like big trouble.

[canonphotog]

there is nothing 'legal' about it - the photographer never has to take on a client they do not want.

You might want to rethink the difference between "legal" and "illegal" :rolleyes:

[suchalittlewifey]

IN-DEPTH REVISIONS - Can you define that? Did you have your own contract drafted the first time by a lawyer? Or did you draft it yourself and thought it was good enough?

[neil_r]

The precedent that this would set would destroy half the threads in this section of the board.

How can there be banter over what should be in or out of the photographers contract when we all let the customer/client write it anyway :-)

(BTW it certainly looks like walking away from this was the correct decision)

[tlc]

You might want to rethink the difference between "legal" and "illegal" :rolleyes:


ummm... i was quoting someone else....

[Philco]

I wouldv'e been interested to see what changes they made first, before deciding. It's easy to assume that all changes would be in their favor, but you wouldn't know until you see it. For instance, I allowed several revisions to one contract for an atty. client. The main change stated that photography would be done by me personally and not a substitute because my contract says 'includes photography by defalco photo" and not strictly by me. He also wanted a minimum guarantee of proofs, instead of "up to 450" or whatever - so it didn't really change the nature of the contract itself. Since you had some emails back and forth, I'm guessing you had a taste for the direction it was going, so you probably made the right choice, but I'd still be curious to know what they took issue with.

[Curtis N]

This thread would be more interesting if you told us more specifically what they wanted to change.

[jarias]

I would not have lied I just would of told them sorry I will not make any changes to the contract if you want to hire me thats my contract sign it if not thank you for considering me. We all hate lawyers till we need them.

[suchalittlewifey]

Why such a big deal about the changes...mind you..we still don't know what the changes in your case were...but I agree with Philco...completely :)

[MrsOpie]

I used to be a real estate agent and an escrow officer. The real estate purchase agreement is a bilateral contract meaning that both parties can change the contract until they have reached an agreement. However, with all mortgage loans the contract and paper work is unilateral meaning that you can accept the conditions of the contract or walk away. I did a closing for a paralegal and she wanted to change the promisary note that the bank put together. She wanted to cross out the wording and rewrite it. I told her that all of the paper work is unilateral and she can accept the wording or walk away from the loan. She seemed some what ok with my response and signed all of the documents and got her refinance.

You as a photographer have to decided if your contract is bilateral or unilateral.

[Philco]

This thread would be more interesting if.....

That's such a loaded way to begin any response!

[daclozer]

I think you did the right thing also. I just choose not to deal with people like that, period. No single photo shoot is worth the stress of being sued over some fine print in a modified contract.
p.s. I pretty much loathe attorneys..

[LeesaB]

I just booked a law grad going for her bars...

I knew when she saw my contract she would eat me alive...but I thought..well..let's see what happens...My contract is simple but spells it all out.

She questioned two thngs...

1. sole photographer
2. not responsible for damage, etc...

That was it..I felt very blessed...

If she would have been nasty or worse,,,again, I would not want her..

her story is wonderful, and when we get to her storybook wedding..I will let you all know it.

[tim]

It would've been interesting to see what they said, like a free consult on your contract! I've once made minor changes for a customer, but other than that I would only change if they made a good and fair point.

[suecassidy]

AWKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!! I love it!! I love it that you had the cajones to do that. It really doesn't matter what the changes were, that was a matter of principle and when they are throwing their weight around and that part of the process, well....you don't need the headache that would undoubtedly go with the rest of the process. Wow. My husband and I own a large glass company and we get nailed with frivolous law suits way too often (Your bathroom sink is 2 inches too high for handicapped people, you don't have a sign warning about the manufacturing lead on your premises... but your honor, we aren't a retail establishment, those rules don't apply to us -- NO MATTER -- it costs us a fortune to get to court to proove that. Lawyers...sheesh) It is the cost of doing business in the United States, I guess and we have to play the litigation game. We are in 33 countries and have never once been sued by our foreign franchisees, only in the USA. Run while you still have legs.

I love that you had the guts to do that. You GO! sue

[LeesaB]

OOo tell me about law suits...we own a construction company and build condo's and homes...I cannot tell you the things people in high places do to get their job done for nothing....even a company that builds churches...tore us up one year..I still think about the 41k they owe us...It's just sad...and the courts go with the one who pays the most..and that is not us.

[bleeds]

Well, since I did not supply them with my fax number, they took the time to type out their revisions and insisted I read it to reconsider. I did not. Below is what they sent me. Deconstruct it and tell me if they have any validity. I, of course, am not a lawyer, so I didn't want to deal with them. But I'll probably revise it sometime in the future, though.

Enjoy.

___________

Reservations Paragraph

This states that “all services, packages, and products require full pre-payment.” Then later in the paragraph it states “the final 1/3 is due upon completion of media. This requires clarification as the clauses are inconsistent.

Waiver of Force Majeure clause is unacceptable to us

Limitation of Liability

Liquidated damages equal to the retainer fee is unacceptable to us – they should be equal to the total contract price + incidental damages or liquidated damages agreed upon by both parties in advance

“Client agrees not to hold ____ or its associates responsible for any faults in tapes and or footage caused by the actions of . . . ” –

We would not be willing to waive your liability for faults in the footage caused by you
or your equipment. The other waivers of liability that for parties or circumstances that I omitted above would be acceptable to us.

Working Conditions

“Client . . . is responsible for any damage to equipment done by guests.”

This is far too broad a scope of liability for any client to (knowingly) accept. It fails to state whether the guest’s conduct must be negligent, reckless or willful. Damage caused without recklessness or willfulness should be covered by your insurance policy instead of making the client your insurer.

Delivery of Video/DVD-R

Waiver of liability for loss of creative material “in transit” is not acceptable. Delivery should be F.O.B. Seller

[MrsOpie]

Well, since I did not supply them with my fax number, they took the time to type out their revisions and insisted I read it to reconsider. I did not. Below is what they sent me. Deconstruct it and tell me if they have any validity. I, of course, am not a lawyer, so I didn't want to deal with them. But I'll probably revise it sometime in the future, though.

Enjoy.

___________

Reservations Paragraph

This states that “all services, packages, and products require full pre-payment.” Then later in the paragraph it states “the final 1/3 is due upon completion of media. This requires clarification as the clauses are inconsistent.

Waiver of Force Majeure clause is unacceptable to us

Limitation of Liability

Liquidated damages equal to the retainer fee is unacceptable to us – they should be equal to the total contract price + incidental damages or liquidated damages agreed upon by both parties in advance

“Client agrees not to hold ____ or its associates responsible for any faults in tapes and or footage caused by the actions of . . . ” –

We would not be willing to waive your liability for faults in the footage caused by you
or your equipment. The other waivers of liability that for parties or circumstances that I omitted above would be acceptable to us.

Working Conditions

“Client . . . is responsible for any damage to equipment done by guests.”

This is far too broad a scope of liability for any client to (knowingly) accept. It fails to state whether the guest’s conduct must be negligent, reckless or willful. Damage caused without recklessness or willfulness should be covered by your insurance policy instead of making the client your insurer.

Delivery of Video/DVD-R

Waiver of liability for loss of creative material “in transit” is not acceptable. Delivery should be F.O.B. Seller


I hate to be disagreeable but what they have stated is rather valid concerns as a client. " Liquidated damages" can be the full price of the package and then some if they sue for pain and suffering due to having no wedding photographs and paying the full package price. Only recieving the retainer as compensation for a mistake is heart breaking to them.

Most photographers contracts protect the photographer only and have very little regared to what a client gets if the photographer defaults. I think they were just looking out for themselves.

[Woogie]

They're smart. Too smart. I wouldn't want to work with them. Their concerns are valid, but I'd be afraid. If i were a doctor, I'd be afraid to operate on lawyers.

[suecassidy]

I don't think that any of the photographer's contractual requests are out of line with what is an industry accepted standard. Many, if not most, wedding vendors require full payment up front. The cake dude, the food dude, the dress dude. There is no amount of money that could make up for the emotional pain that results if any of those vendors don't show up or produce properly, and it is common to limit liability to the cost of the cake, the food, the whatever. I do see the couple's side on the equipment thing. That's what we have insurance for, so I don't think that is unreasonable to complain about that. If it were me, I would not be considering the validity or lack thereof of their concerns. The fact that they are both attorneys and could make my life needlessly miserable should I make a freakin' honest mistake would be enough to make me walk away. There will be other weddings without that potential aggravation. That's my 2 cents worth. sue

[mmahoney]

Reservations Paragraph

RUN .. far & fast and don't look back.
Mike

[tim]

They have a fair point on the inconsistencies, but for the other clauses I wouldn't accept any. I'd decline to provide services for them.

[subtle_spectre]

I'd work with them...send them my way. Of course, I also play a lawyer 5 days a week!

More seriously, in most parts, if lawyers negotiate with non-lawyers and something does go wrong and the matter winds up in court, the lawyers are held to the strictest letter of the agreement, while the non-lawyer is held to a more normal standard.

By the way, I hate working with lawyers, too!

[JaertX]

I would definitely work with them. Especially if they're willing to clean up your contract a bit. Speaking of, I really should have a lawyer review my contract.

I wouldn't necessarily agree to all of their changes, but I'm sure just like any deal there would be some give and take.

I have had quite a few clients in the past that were lawyers and don't regret it any...they can be very interesting people! (in a good way, I think.)

[Philco]

You'd have to weigh the chances any thing actionable is going to happen in the first place versus the potential income. A lot of what they're saying makes sense, but the part about liquidated damages above the contract value would bother me, but that's also what I have insurance for.

[MrTED]

I wouldv'e been interested to see what changes they made first, before deciding. It's easy to assume that all changes would be in their favor, but you wouldn't know until you see it. For instance, I allowed several revisions to one contract for an atty. client. The main change stated that photography would be done by me personally and not a substitute because my contract says 'includes photography by defalco photo" and not strictly by me. He also wanted a minimum guarantee of proofs, instead of "up to 450" or whatever - so it didn't really change the nature of the contract itself. Since you had some emails back and forth, I'm guessing you had a taste for the direction it was going, so you probably made the right choice, but I'd still be curious to know what they took issue with.

By no means am I trying to cause a stir, but I would not modify my contract to say I would personally shoot the wedding. What happens if you are in hospital, but can find a more than competant replacement... you are in breach of contract.

I have a clause that says although we have assigned a photographer for the day, a suitable replacement may be used if that person is not available due to illness, injury etc. (not exact wording but you get the idea).

Nathan

[MrTED]

Well, since I did not supply them with my fax number, they took the time to type out their revisions and insisted I read it to reconsider. I did not. Below is what they sent me. Deconstruct it and tell me if they have any validity. I, of course, am not a lawyer, so I didn't want to deal with them. But I'll probably revise it sometime in the future, though.

Enjoy.

___________

Reservations Paragraph

This states that “all services, packages, and products require full pre-payment.” Then later in the paragraph it states “the final 1/3 is due upon completion of media. This requires clarification as the clauses are inconsistent.

Waiver of Force Majeure clause is unacceptable to us

Limitation of Liability

Liquidated damages equal to the retainer fee is unacceptable to us – they should be equal to the total contract price + incidental damages or liquidated damages agreed upon by both parties in advance

“Client agrees not to hold ____ or its associates responsible for any faults in tapes and or footage caused by the actions of . . . ” –

We would not be willing to waive your liability for faults in the footage caused by you
or your equipment. The other waivers of liability that for parties or circumstances that I omitted above would be acceptable to us.

Working Conditions

“Client . . . is responsible for any damage to equipment done by guests.”

This is far too broad a scope of liability for any client to (knowingly) accept. It fails to state whether the guest’s conduct must be negligent, reckless or willful. Damage caused without recklessness or willfulness should be covered by your insurance policy instead of making the client your insurer.

Delivery of Video/DVD-R

Waiver of liability for loss of creative material “in transit” is not acceptable. Delivery should be F.O.B. Seller


I don't want to tell you what to do, please don't think that, but my thoughts are... it appears there are some inconsistencies that need to be fixed anyway, especially in the payments and limit of liabilities payments section. Stand by your Force Majeure clause. Stand by your faulty equipment clause, but you may need to change your refund policy. Lastly, I am not sure if I read the last one correctly, but I would be responsible for the delivery of the finished media to the B&G, if I doesn't make it, it get sent again, but in my case, I hand deliver.

Just my thoughts...

Nathan

[jessiper]

I shot a lawyer's wedding once, and she did ask to make one minor change, and I've permanently added it to my contract. Did you have a lawyer help you write up the contract in the first place? If not, I would at least consider what they have to say. Still, though, if they're being pushy and rude, then I wouldn't work with them. Luckily the bride lawyer I worked with loved her pics and recommends me to people...whew!!

[Philco]

Mr. Ted,
Their concern, based on a friends experience, was that I would hire somebody out to shoot their wedding for me and not even tell them. Basically they wanted to make sure it was me personally that they were contracting, not just a random shooter chosen by me.

There is still a clause in my contract that says if I cannot shoot the wedding for some reason beyond my control, I will do my best to find a replacement or refund any money so far collected , so that could still happen.

[tlc]

just because you put a stipulation in your contract, does not make it legal and binding. i am quite positive that there are many photographers' contracts out there that could be torn to shreds in a court of law. if it ever got that far.....

i really advise everyone have their contracts reviewed by an attorney - would you really want to lose everything you have worked so hard for becasue you worded something wrong? its just not worth it and the cost will far outweigh the benefit.

[mmahoney]

just because you put a stipulation in your contract, does not make it legal and binding.

Why not :rolleyes:

If both parties agree and sign then it is legal & binding.

No court will overturn a contract signed by both parties with this type of wording at the end:

"I have read and understood the terms above. I hereby agree to the terms of this agreement."

[overclock]

I feel a duck cartoon coming about you. You better copyright this event so you can get one of those attorneys to sue for you.

[bwolford]

I'd work with them...send them my way. Of course, I also play a lawyer 5 days a week!

More seriously, in most parts, if lawyers negotiate with non-lawyers and something does go wrong and the matter winds up in court, the lawyers are held to the strictest letter of the agreement, while the non-lawyer is held to a more normal standard.

By the way, I hate working with lawyers, too!

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the US legal system would still side with the lawyer and "counsel" the sap that didn't get a lawyer that they screwed up by agreeing to a contract without legal representation. I'm not buying it. And it has nothing to do with you being a lawyer in your day job! :D