contracts

[lisa h]

Hi, I have two questions about contracts. I understand that any advice given

should also be approved by a lawyer but I would appreciate your thoughts & insight.

 

1- Is it necessary to have both the bride & groom sign the contract, could it

cause potential prroblems if only one does? For instance, if the bride is the

only one who signs it and she is the one who wrote the check, I don't see why

this would be a problem but maybe I am missing something...

 

2- Normally, for couples who don't live in close proximity, once they are ready

to sign the contract I mail them two copies already signed by me, one for them

to keep and one for them to sign and mail back to me. Recently I read that this

might not be a good idea. I am guessing it is because they could make changes

to it after they receive it, is that why this should not be done? How do you

handle this situation?

 

Thanks,

Lisa

[annealmasy]

Hi Lisa! :)

<p>

You're right that you need to confirm ANY and all legal advice with an attorney. But I'll

share what I understand to be accurate based on conversations with our attorney:

<p>

<i><b>1- Is it necessary to have both the bride & groom sign the contract, could it cause

potential prroblems if only one does? For instance, if the bride is the only one who signs it

and she is the one who wrote the check, I don't see why this would be a problem but

maybe I am missing something...</i></b>

<p>

Our contract offers a line for the CLIENT, who retains our services to document the BRIDE

and GROOM'S experience on their wedding day. The Client (bride, groom, mom, dad,

aunt, whoever) is responsible for all payments. This does NOT mean that the Client

personally has to MAKE the payments. It just means the Client is RESPONSIBLE for them.

For example, if I buy a car, I am responsible for the car payments. Maybe my mom has

agreed to pay those payments for me. But if she fails to pay, *I'm* the one responsible for

it, not her. (Unless, of course, she co-signed the contract.)

<p>

<i><b>2- Normally, for couples who don't live in close proximity, once they are ready to

sign the contract I mail them two copies already signed by me, one for them to keep and

one for them to sign and mail back to me. Recently I read that this might not be a good

idea. I am guessing it is because they could make changes to it after they receive it, is that

why this should not be done? How do you handle this situation?</i></b>

<p>

We send an unsigned contract to the couple. They sign it and send it back to us. We then

sign it and send a COPY back to them. For couples who are uncomfortable paying the

retainer before they have a signed contract, we fax the contract back and forth so they can

give us their credit card number as soon as they've receive the signed agreement.

<p>

The reason it's bad to send a signed contract is that they can then also sign it but never

actually send you a copy, or send you the retainer. They could claim that they wrote you a

check for the retainer but you never cashed it. Then, when you don't show up on their

wedding day, they could sue you.

<p>

On the other hand, if a client sends YOU a signed contract but you never send back a

signed copy, they have no reason to believe that you are accepting the contract, and they

can move on. You can't/won't sue THEM if you don't show up at their wedding! ;)

<p>

Good luck, and don't forget to check with an attorney about the laws in your state!

[colleendonovan]

What Anne said. She's a smart cookie! :)

[john_h.1]

"if a client sends YOU a signed contract but you never send back a signed copy, they have no reason to believe that you are accepting the contract, and they can move on."

 

<<<Buzzer Sound>>> Do not rely on this statement. Verbal contracts can be formed by an offer and acceptance to exchange consideration (such as agreeing to shoot a wedding in exchange for money). Absent an express requirement that both parties must actually sign a written version for the agreement, for the agreement to be enforcable, you risk obligating yourself.

 

There are many scenerios where the language you use could amount to an agreement or where the written contract can become merely evidence of the contract. There are other factors such as a client reasonably believing that that the photographer forgot to mail the written contract or that or that it is lost in the mail. There are many issues that can arise but too many to get in to here.

 

Some jurisdictions will rule on this issue differently than others. Follow your own advice Lisa and see the real "smart cookie" mentioned in the second sentence of your post.

[annealmasy]

<b>John Henneberger , feb 17, 2007; 10:39 a.m.</b>

<p>

<i>"if a client sends YOU a signed contract but you never send back a signed copy, they

have no reason to believe that you are accepting the contract, and they can move on."

<<<Buzzer Sound>>> Do not rely on this statement. Verbal contracts can be formed by

an offer and acceptance to exchange consideration (such as agreeing to shoot a wedding

in exchange for money). Absent an express requirement that both parties must actually

sign a written version for the agreement, for the agreement to be enforcable, you risk

obligating yourself.</i>

<p>

John, this scenario is EXACTLY why I reminded Lisa to consult her attorney. I did not claim

to be giving her guaranteed legal advice. Our contract DOES state that both parties must

sign in order for it to be valid. Any good contract will say that. Assuming Lisa has a good

contract, a contract signed ONLY by the client will not be valid.

<p>

But yes, all of these details must be reviewed by an attorney.

[annealmasy]

<b>John Henneberger , feb 17, 2007; 10:39 a.m.</b>

<p>

<i>"if a client sends YOU a signed contract but you never send back a signed copy, they

have no reason to believe that you are accepting the contract, and they can move on."

<<<Buzzer Sound>>> Do not rely on this statement. Verbal contracts can be formed by

an offer and acceptance to exchange consideration (such as agreeing to shoot a wedding

in exchange for money). Absent an express requirement that both parties must actually

sign a written version for the agreement, for the agreement to be enforcable, you risk

obligating yourself.</i>

<p>

John, this scenario is EXACTLY why I reminded Lisa to consult her attorney. I did not claim

to be giving her guaranteed legal advice. Our contract DOES state that both parties must

sign in order for it to be valid. Any good contract will say that. Assuming Lisa has a good

contract, a contract signed ONLY by the client will not be valid.

<p>

But yes - all of these details must be reviewed by an attorney.

[steve_hovland]

"The Wedding and Portrait Photographer's Legal Handbook" by Phillips and Nudo is very good, and there is a link to soft copies of the contracts they discuss.

 

Norman Phillips is a high-end photographer in the Chicago area (and world wide), so his opinions, and those of his lawyer, are deserving of respect :-)

 

http://www.normanphillipsoflondon.com/

[lisa h]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

 

Anne, I appreciate you sharing your procedures with me and Steve I will check out that link.

 

Thanks,

Lisa