Brides dad is a lawyer, has questions about contract.

I need to know how to answer this brides father who love to pick apart contracts.

 

Question 1. Is there a guarantee that we will be there on that date?

 

Doesent this part pretty much say that?

 

2. RETAINER: Upon your signature, Marc Photography will reserve the time and date agreed upon, and will not make

other reservations for that time and date. For this reason, a retainer of 50% is non-refundable, even if the date is

changed or the wedding cancelled for any reason; including acts of God, fire, strike and/or extreme weather. The

retainer is to be paid at time of signing the contract. The retainer is applied towards the contracted wedding

photography package. THE CLIENT understands and agrees that the entire amount owed for the wedding

photography package described in the contract is due one week prior to the wedding date.

 

Question 2. Will they be responsible for any equipment that a guest breaks and why wont insurance cover it.

 

If THE CLIENT is unable to control the conduct of their guests, resulting in an unacceptable degree of misconduct, or

if the conduct of any of their guests damages the equipment of the photographer, it will result in the early or

immediate departure of the photographer. THE CLIENT understands that in such an event, no refunds will be granted

and any damage to equipment will be the responsibility of THE CLIENT to replace or repair.

 

 

 

 

 

How do I respond to someone like this? Those lawers think that everyone is out to get them. Should I just tell him

to write some ammendments in to make him feel comfortable or what? I feel like he is going to sue me for everything

I am worth if i make one wrong step. Frankly, I dont really want to deal with a client like that. What should I do?

Question 1: If he thinks he needs better wording to guarantee your presence at the wedding have him suggest it. I would state that in your mind, your professional reputation is the best guarantee, but that yes, you interpret the contract to require your showing up.

 

Question 2: Insurance does not usually cover intentional damage. If he is saying that no matter what the guests do, you are on your own, I'd walk. Ask if the reception hall would allow the guests to torch the place. My bet is no so why should they be allowed to trash your equipment.

I would simply reply that terms are clearly stated in the contract and he can either accept them or not. It would be sort of polite but firm response that might get this client to back out of the sale (which is what you want, right?).

 

My two cents.

[[Doesent this part pretty much say that? ]]

 

It doesn't address illness or other emergencies nor does it address any attempts on your part to secure another

photographer in such case. You obviously cannot (and should not) guarantee your presence at the event, but

perhaps he's looking for something that says you will make every effort to provide a backup should an act of God

or some other extreme circumstance come about. I think this is a valid question.

 

The photographer for the wedding of a friend of mine became seriously ill the night before the wedding

(hospitalization, I believe, was the end-result). The photographer did arrange for a backup. I'm not saying

this is something you need to or should do (your contract is up to you to) but it's certainly something I've

encountered.

Rob, I have that in another part of the contract.

 

22. LIMIT OF LIABILITY: In the unlikely event of severe medical, natural, or other emergencies, it may be necessary to retain an alternative photographer. Marc Photography will make every effort to secure a replacement photographer able and/or willing to provide a similar package as chosen in this contract at the same/similar tariff. If such a situation should occur and a suitable replacement is not found, responsibility and liability is limited to the return of all payments received for the event package.

Should equipment damnage be something that the client should cover or should I have insurance for something like that?

His main concern was why my insurance wouldnt cover it.

Ah, well then, perhaps he just can't read? :)

*damage* whoops didnt mean to curse.

My problem is that I do not currently have any business insurance anyways. I really need to look into it, right now I am in the process of going from Sole Proprietorship to LLC. Anyone got any suggestions for business insurance?

IMO you're playing with fire to not have business insurance. Ask your agent if you can purchase a policy now and convert it to your business entity later.

 

May I suggest that you consult your lawyer (not the internet) for good legal advice, before you have further dealings with this client. If you are concerned that the client-lawyer is unduly aggressive, your own lawyer can give you a counterbalance, either when you refer to having consulted or directly by having the lawyer talk to them. Also, your lawyer can give you confidence through proper, personalized legal advice that actually applies in your jurisdiction. In any event, the lawyer can help you shore up your contract if needed. Might cost you some money, but the amount might be a whole lot less than not getting the advice.

It sounds like question 2 is your real problem.

 

Just because you don't have insurance, doesn't mean you can't lay all the liability on the client if something happens to some of your gear.

 

You should get a lawyer to rewrite you contract for you, and get business insurance.

 

The only answer you can give him is that Yes, they're responsible if their guests break your equipment and your insurance doesn't cover it because you don't have any. Any other answer and he's going to know you're jerking him around.

Sounds like a good answer Joseph. I have the feeling after she argues with her dad over the situation she will book us anyways. She wanted to sign the contract when she met with us but said her dad would be mad if she signed a contract without him looking at it.

Insurance has been one of those things that I have been needing to do but never really got to.

He has two good points. He's not paranoid, he sounds like a lawyer who might actually know the law. On Question

1 he is likley looking for a specific contract - something like "I, the photographer, will be at the wedding location,

specifically XYZ church, at 8 AM on Saturday, August 32, 2009..." On question 2 I'll bet he is poking at the fact that

you cannot make him responsible for any action of a third party. He know that if it ends up in court you are the one

likely to be disappointed because it is not reasonalbe for him to control the actions of others. Your gripe, in the

unfortunate event of equipment damage, is between you and the individual who busted your gear, not between you

and him.

If he's being this way now, as in picking apart your mutual responsibilities and actions, aren't you concerned

about how he will be once the event is over? Seems like he's finding any excuse to lay fault (and a lawsuit or

demand for refund) on you for the slightest miss step such as failing to get a shot of Aunt Tillie tripping over

the flower girl at the reception (while you're busy shooting the cake cutting) or a shot of one of his important

clients/friends (whom you never heard about) who only showed up for fifteen seconds and then ran out the door.

 

This guy may be totally legitimate in his concerns, but it sounds like he's giving you tons of clues that there

is trouble ahead no matter what you do.

 

Maybe a trip to the zoo with the wife and kids, a movie, a great round of golf or a fishing weekend might be a

better option.

I will give you an annology. I had a rare special problem and was sent to nationally known specialist for treatment. Dr. P is the best in a field and treatment was a sucess.

 

My family doctor sent another person who must have had a lawyer as an advisor. He/she started asking all kinds of very specialized questions about what can go wrong and some very specific risks and how the doctor avoids them. These are questions no ordinary person would ask about.

 

Sensing future problems, the doctor refused to accept the person as a patient. Result was they did not get treatment or got inferior treatment. Dr. P. did not get sued.

 

I would suggest you find another client for that day.

One of things I learned in my former photo business was not to take on potential problem clients even though the financial loss might have hurt, They are more trouble than they are worth. I know. It takes ten minutes with an insurance agent, at least that's all it took with me, to become covered so that you are protected when screening customers fails. IMHO, as said before, contract issues need to be taken on by a lawyer in your local jurisdiction.

I'll also bet that he is poking at the totally undefinable phrase "...unacceptable degree of misconduct...". The father-of-the-bride seems to simply want full disclosure about questionabley stated terms, conditions, and risks. How does he know if you might find, for example, a little "dirty dancing" to be an "unacceptable degree of misconduct" and result in you walking off the job in a fit of emotional disgust? That sounds rediculous, of course, but given the exact words in your contract... who knows. :)

I don't work as a photographer, but I do work in a small business.

 

I recognizer the type, even if he was a plumber or a construction laborer instead of an attorney. Don't walk, run

from this guy. You will not end up with a satisfied customer, even if you don't get sued, and you'll stand on

your head to keep him off your back. The mere fact that he is a lawyer makes his already poor attitude even more

alarming. What may take him 30 minutes of his time to file in court can cost you thousands of dollars to

disprove. You will probably cave into the threat because it just isn't worth it.

 

MB

To my non-legal mind, it's unwise to enter into discussion about what the terms of a contract mean or don't mean, otherwise you very quickly find that your conversation has been subsumed into the contract and you've accidentally voided various bits of it.

 

So my very polite answer would be that the contract stands on its own, and it wouldn't be correct for you to enter into discussion about it. I'm sure as a lawyer he understands that.

"To my non-legal mind, it's unwise to enter into discussion about what the terms of a contract mean or don't mean, ..."

 

Not picking on you Alec, but using your quote only to provide context...

 

It is equally unwise for a service/product-provider to present legal-sounding contracts that (a) doesn't really have legal "legs" or (b) contain terms/conditions that the product/service-provider can't explain. How many times have we heard "just sign here... it's just the 'standard' paperwork... don't worry, it really doesn't mean anything but everyone signs it...etc."

 

The burden of understanding is on both sides of a contract if it to serve its pupose. I, personally, wouldn't think of the questions as a major concern for future problems.

Refund the money already paid you, suggest an alternate photographer and walk away.

 

-Owen

Going to the OP's questions.

 

Question 1. No. The way I read it, the clause simply says you won't book any other business for that time.

Note that there are studios, etc., that book multiple events and have more than one photographer or set of

photographers, assistants, etc., available at any given time. So stating that you won't book other business for

that time doesn't mean that you will be there.

 

Is there something, someplace that says that you or a qualified representative, competent to perform the

contracted business, will be there at the time/times agreed on?

 

Question 2. Legally vague. How do you define "unacceptable degree of misconduct?" How does he define it"

Your clause suggests that if you get unhappy, you are going to walk. Of course he doesn't like it.

 

BTW, if you don't have your own business insurance, you could expect him to "fire" you or not hire you.

 

If you don't understand what your contract says or how it applies, he's not the problem. If you've included (or

copied) clauses that are unfavorable to him or his interests, then you could expect him to object. While not

being a lawyer, I have worked a lot with contractual business agreements and things like "statements of work,"

standards and specifications. It's not uncommon for some of the suggestions of contract language offered on

these various forums or provided as copied from someone's own contracts, to be vague, unenforceable, or very

one-sided. You take that language to a person who recognizes those pitfalls (for you or him) and you could

expect some concern to be expressed.

 

The contract needs to work for both parties, to protect both parties interests. "Bad" language is a problem for

both parties if there is a problem later. That does mean that somethings are hard to define contractually.

 

Seriously, if you entered a business contract of some sort for some kind of performance, and the other party told

you they didn't have insurance, and that you couldn't take the contract to your lawyer for review before signing,

would you really consider that?

Just be glad you are not marrying that girl. Imagine how the husband is going to be scrutinized.

Alright, thanks everyone for contributing to the answer. I am thinking that we may just pass on these clients.

One of the reasons they liked us is becuase our prices are pretty low for our area. This is my first year doing wedding photography and we dont have the overhead to afford lawyers and other types of protection just yet. We are more concerned with forming a client base and getting referrals.

I guess if us not having insurance is a problem for them they can find another more established photographer that can meet their needs.

You cant get a 5 cent lemonade and expect the kids to have their lemonade stand insured if you back over it.

Don't enter into an agreement with these people. I'm not sure what lawyers mean by "guarantees" but they always seem

to ask about them. They must learn that in law school or something. In my profession I usually can't pick and choose my

"clients", so when I run up against a lawyer type I say "no" to the guarantee question.