Mom's Unreasonable album requests

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p> So when I designed the album I designed it for the bride NOT mom</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately not - you did the album for the mother because you signed the contract with her. So if whe isn't happy her daughter's signature means squat no matter how much say her daughter has.<br>

I have been on the rough end of this sort of situation and the hard lesson is that the contract signatory signs off the final product unless they clearly designate someone else - at the very least I would have contacted MOB and found out if she was happy for her daughter to approve them; better still ask her to reply to an e-mail confirming that; best option though is still for her to come and sign them off herself. If you had done any of those things then you could argue that they had not communicated properly between themselves and you could maybe offset some of the cost of re-doing it.<br>

I agree with other posts - the fact you ordered the wrong album is nothing to do with the requests of MOB here so should not be any part of discussions with the client. Mentioning it to them could go from 'oh he was great, he corrected his own mistake' to '...and another thing he screwed up was...'.</p>

<p>The easiest business to get is repeat business so if you get this right they will recommend you to other people (maybe give MOB a free album?).</p>

[mike_whalen]

<address>One thing I learned when in business for myself for 15 years was " The customer is always right, even when they're wrong**". A positive recommendation from this family may seed more orders, and that in the long run, this is good for business. On the other hand, if they are asking for touch ups that were not included in the original contract then don't be shy about stating your fees on custom enhancements like cloning out flowers or correcting double chins. Color correction should probably be included at no charge. I also thing the daughter is right to assume the corrections would be included in all final albums.</address><address></address><address>**there are exceptions to every rule</address>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>a new album for Mom is about the only way out of this... ...just because, simply, by law Mom was the signing client.</em><br /><em></em><br />Actually, signing alone does not make mom the client. The contract should state who the client and deciding authority is. If it is silent on that issue the odds of Mom, as signor, being the authority excercising client is much greater though.</p>

<p>The cure to avoid future instances of this is to set forth in the contract, clearly and in writing, who is the decision making client and if its not the signing party, it should say that that person's conduct alone governs. Now the designated client can still pursue the signor's bidding, as seen here, but it brings needed order. If a bride is made the actual client with sole decision making authority and signs off that the work was completed satisfactorily, then the signing party's subsequent claims are essentially unenforcable. Any new work is solely based on supposed good will, other non-contractual reasons or a brand new contract.</p>

<p>Sometimes making the clients and others happy, despite having no legal obligation, can go too far. Someone could demand a whole refund and be a negative referall when one does not do as they demand. Here, however, there was this confusion caused by agreeing with the signor (who you say is the actual client) to make adjustments and then the adjustments did not follow to the album. The fact that the signor and/or bride were demanding may be frustrating but it was a clear signal that the confusion caused would become an issue later. There was also compounding confusion caused treating one person as a client who you say was not a client. Even more confusion was caused by agreeing to major and extra adjustments due to 'niceness' rather than a fee based or pre-existing contracted services.</p>

<p>If you had followed a clear contractual path on this, the decision would be based solely on whether you should cave in to demands that were obviously not contracted for. Here, the mom and bride may be difficult but it is, nevertheless, a self inflicted mess transcending legal and customer service issues. Even if you were to win on the legal front, you allowed confusion to reign and the demands don't seem so unreasonable as a result.</p>

[michaelchadwickphotography]

<p>Amen, Stephen. Between this type of mother-in-law (nice but really unreasonable and wanting what she wants) and a bride who has no spine when it comes to being in charge of her own life away from her mother, that guys' gonna need a LOT of beer.</p>

 

[mike_whalen]

<p>Addendum (after reading more threads): since the bride had already approved the album, say to the mom, "sorry but your daughter has already approved it and I went ahead with the print. It's too late to make changes under the original contract, but I would be happy to make modifications and print another album for an additional cost." It was the daughter's mistake to approve the album without the mom's consent, not yours. There is no reason to eat the cost of someone elses mistake. On the other hand if you are in a gray zone about who did what when, you should always give the client the benefit of the doubt. Good luck.</p>

[photog630]

<p>Just offer to add an extra chin, free of charge. Clients LOVE that.<br>

But seriously, Mom and bride need to agree on what changes they want made, before you do anything else. Have Mom or bride email the agreed-upon changes to you as a means of protecting yourself. Even if they have a conversation with you over the phone discussing changes, just ask them to email it you to confirm. Or offer to email the alts to them, and use the email to get their confirmation on an electronic paper trail. Just in case. You can put your additional pricing in there too, just to keep everything transparent. Sometimes that additional cost tends to limit the amount of changes that are "nice to do" versus "need to do."<br>

The compromise on price sounds like a good way for everyone to feel satisfied at this point. But I definitely wouldn't do all this work for free. Your time is money, and if you do all this for free, then everyone else will be looking for freebies when you work for them as well.<br>

And, copy them both on the email.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Yes, Mike. I have first hand, bitter experience of how a mother can turn into a witch when its about wedding plans. It happened to me.<br>

My mother (with my father keeping his head down and agreeing with her) made all sorts of demands on us over our wedding, even though we were paying for the whole thing. There was the guest list, the color of the cake, the venue, which church....endless conditions and she made them contingent on them coming when it looked like I would stand up to her.<br>

I was faced with a choice: Tell my mother to pull her head in or cave in and be her dutiful only son. I chose to show leadership and did the former. She didn't come to the wedding as a result. It was more important that she win the argument than see her only child married. It poisoned the whole affair and as a couple we never recovered. In the end we divorced.<br>

So my feelings here are strong. Tell her to go jump, and tell the husband to man up.</p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>And some people still ask me why I don't shoot weddings.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

[daveinwilton]

<p>Ditto Owen<br />Regards all<br />-Dave</p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>Here are my thoughts:<br>

First, you need to meet with everyone and get this worked out. You also need to do whatever it takes and chalk it up to experience. You shouldn't have let the bride have the final say when she doesn't have the final say.<br>

You have an additional expense here because you made an initial mistake, but you can't let that cloud your judgement.<br>

This is why I'm not a fan of print and bind. I like to see the prints from the lab, then have the album bound. If I have a picky client, I invite them in to approve the prints first. Just my opinion, but it works for me.<br>

Don't let all these others steer you into making a decision that isn't right for your business. Charging an unhappy client is never the way to go about this. It's not going to remedy the situation with your client, it's going to anger them even more. And what do you think it's going to do to referrals?......-Aimee </p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>after reading more threads): since the bride had already approved the album, say to the mom, "sorry but your daughter has already approved it and I went ahead with the print. It's too late to make changes under the original contract, </em><br>

<em></em><br>

<em>Apparently you didn't read the part that matters, namely, Geo stating that the mom is the client. Assuming that is accurate, then what someone else does, including the bride, is irrelevent. The statement above being incorrect as a result. Now an exception would exist if the bride were the agent of the client. That's possible but we weren't given enough facts to support that. Do you have information that we don't have?</em></p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>The nitty gritty of all this is actually who paid? For a contract to be enforceable one needs three elements: Offer, acceptance and consideration (money to change hands). Simple signatures are not enough. Payment has to be made. Whoever makes the payment is in fact the party to the contract. If payment has not been made then you can rescind the contract and walk away.</p>

<p>And yes, Owen...this is why I don't do them either.</p>

[geo_martin]

<p>Even though they have been overly picky on inconsequential items (my view) they have still been extremely nice.<br>

Personally, I just can't see how someone wants the altar flowers removed from the background on a totaly candid shot of them exiting down the aisle. That makes no sense at all. They bought the flowers, they put them there, they are part of the background.<br>

What next, remove the altar and replace it with the Crystal Cathedral ?.....lol.....</p>

[ar_fonseca]

<blockquote>

<p>"It was the daughter's mistake to approve the album without the mom's consent, not yours."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this says it all...</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>The nitty gritty of all this is actually who paid? For a contract to be enforceable one needs three elements: Offer, acceptance and consideration (money to change hands). Simple signatures are not enough. Payment has to be made. Whoever makes the payment is in fact the party to the contract.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Wrong. The irony is that you name the elements to a contract but leave out the element that would be required if you statement were true. Namely, that there be a an identified payor. All sorts of contracts, including wedding contracts, are set up so that they paying and/or signing party is not the client and instead designates someone else to be. Also, Third parties often directly "pay" a party to a contract, on behalf of someone else, even though they are not part of the contract. That does not give them authority to act as a party to a contract. This also happens often enough with wedding contracts. A bride signs it, then arrives a check direct from Daddy to the photographer. Dad does not magically become a party to the contract. Also it is incorrect to say that "payment has to be made". Consideration, which you cite, includes promises to pay or give something else of value. This is why contracts often have language indicating that failure to pay by a certain time relieves the photographer of their duties. If those terms weren't there, the photographer would be bound to perform because of the promise to pay which is, itself, consideration. Consideration which needs to be tendered at an unspecified time unless it IS specified.</p>

<p>In this instance, the contract terms govern and, again, we don't have the language so claiming the person who paid is the client is premature. We're just taking Geo's word for it at this point.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"It was the daughter's mistake to approve the album without the mom's consent, not yours."<br>

I think this says it all...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If mom was the actual client, as Geo claims, then this is not true unless the daughter were an agent of the mother. So it doesn't say much of anything actually.</p>

<p>Sorry to make all these corrections but its not right for the readers to be mislead by inaccurate information.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>John,<br>

I assure you in OZ, Common Contract Law applies. If the daughter was the client on the contract, but a third party paid, say the mother, the contract is avoidable as the daughter, the actual party to the contract, did not meet her obligation under it. The law may be different over there.<br>

Thats why, here, we get paid by the party to the contract, 50% on engagement and 50% on the day. And no ifs or buts...receipts are issued <strong>only</strong> to the contracted party. There's none of this "oh, I don't like my hair" or "he didn't look nice" nonsense and withholding payment.<br>

You guys need a stronger contract over there.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>.....And in fact we are moving to fully payment in advance, 14 days prior to the wedding. For example:</p>

<p>http://www.scenethelight.com.au/wedding/contract.pdf</p>

[jack_hudkins]

<p>I make albums for a living and see this many times.<br>

I agree with you. Your contract should always be with the couple (no matter who is paying for it). Have the contract solid, if they want changes, no problem, they simply will have to pay for it. Alway revert back to your contract, it takes the emotion out of it.<br>

best,<br>

jack hudkins</p>

[ken_thalheimer]

<p>Your contract was with the bride & she is happy. The mom's are never completely satisfied & are the biggest pain when doing a wedding. The bride was happy. She signed off. You're paid & done.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>Although I would not necessarily bend to the mother's wishes, I think the best course of action would be talk to the mother directly and explain to her that the bride signed off on all of the prints and her approval carries the most weight. If the mother wants additional re-touching work done so the prints meet <em>her</em> approval, remind her that it is expensive and that any costs incurred by modifications to the prints would be borne <em>by her</em>.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I show my clients a digital proof of the album pages, and have them sign off that it's the way they want it before I order hard copies.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Your contract was with the bride & she is happy... ...The bride was happy. She signed off. You're paid & done.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Geo says that the contract is with the mom. As far as anyone knows, you have not been provided with the contract language. So while it is possible that Geo is mistaken, you have no information that he is. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>There's none of this "oh, I don't like my hair" or "he didn't look nice" nonsense and withholding payment.<br />You guys need a stronger contract over there.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

That's interesting but is not analogous to the situation being discussed here.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>the best course of action would be talk to the mother directly and explain to her that the bride signed off on all of the prints and her approval carries the most weight. </em><br /><em></em><br />If the mom is the client Geo is obligated to perform services for, as he is saying, then the daughter's approval doesn't carry the most weight. It carries no weight. We don't have the contract language here so, at this point, its reckless to assume Geo is incorrect. If the mom is the obligee as he says, then the next issue is whether the mom's claims have any merit.</p>

<p>It appears people are having a hard time reconciling the concept of the wedding couple as the primary focus of the wedding and the work from the fact that some contracts happen to make someone else, such as a parent, the client (obligee). One way to prevent this problem is to follow Jack Hudkins' suggestion above and make clear who has authority to enforce the terms of the contract.</p>