Weddings I think I will keep the deposit
- Thread starter lets dance
- Start date
DJ J Mac : Thank you.
If one takes the time to set aside emotion and reread any documentation that has been personally shared, every word and phrase has been carefully considered, taking worst case scenario into account, addressing it without sounding too stern, and thus, maintaining complete control of my business from outside intervention or interpretation whenever and where ever possible.
The contract I have developed that evolved over 30 years of hosings and attempted hosings, is a testament to words, word arrangement, and specifically vague meanings. [LOL].
Thanks for reading. Hope it has helped your business from falling into unforeseen snares.
If one takes the time to set aside emotion and reread any documentation that has been personally shared, every word and phrase has been carefully considered, taking worst case scenario into account, addressing it without sounding too stern, and thus, maintaining complete control of my business from outside intervention or interpretation whenever and where ever possible.
The contract I have developed that evolved over 30 years of hosings and attempted hosings, is a testament to words, word arrangement, and specifically vague meanings. [LOL].
Thanks for reading. Hope it has helped your business from falling into unforeseen snares.
G
Guest
Guest
Ron, you are absolutely correct.
Wow, Ron and I agreed on something. Satan had better get out the cold weather gear. :sqerr:
Seriously, what he just said was the basis for a previous argument he and I were having. As I said then, there would be nothing stopping ME from giving the money back either as a personal check or some sort of gift certificate; it just would not come from Good Knight Entertainment.
A few years back I had a groom die about three weeks from a wedding. I had been paid in full per the contract. Also, under the contract, the company could not issue a refund and maintain contract integrity. So, I sent them a personal check. That is how I could truthfully answer that judge that I had not waived any part of any contracts. What I do with my money is my business.
I applaud all the due diligence and think good advice has been given all around here. Special thanks to Cap for sharing to that extent.
That being said, I am going to play devil's advocate here:
I don't think any judge would align quite the way many of us are expecting they would/should in these kinds of contractual disputes...
i.e. "Your honor, 'My Company' has never issued a refund, but I personally have out of my own personal resources on two and only two occasions in these two sets of circumstances...."
Where we are dealing with Sole-Proprietorship and Owner/Ops, this distinction ("Me as a business" and "me as a person") is not likely to be made the way it has been put forth here, or granted the kind of weight we think it would. I merely suspect that there will be little to no regard for this "distinction," and any attempt to try to staunchly maintain and defend it (though we should try to in all cases in our business dealings, as has been said here) will not likely result in the kind of "saving grace" or CYA we are assuming it might or thinking it should, and the distinction is probably not too likely to be taken that seriously by a judge considering the issue.
In the judge's eyes, Tom or Cap (either as themselves, OR "doing business as X") either have histories of issuing refunds to X's clients, or they do not. That they chose to do it "out of a different account" is not likely to elicit any kind of special consideration. Legally, and in the eyes of the judge considering the dispute, we are still "Tom" and "Cap" - we are just Tom or Cap "doing business as..."
The conflation of straight business practices and so-called "personal interactions" with BUSINESS CLIENTS and REGARDING BUSINESS MATTERS are likely to be lumped together and viewed as one-and-the-same in the eyes of a judge. And if they aren't, they should be.
Just a thought... I'd love to hear a current/former judge weigh in on this one... I know our opinions and suspicions will keep on flying around all day long
That being said, I am going to play devil's advocate here:
I don't think any judge would align quite the way many of us are expecting they would/should in these kinds of contractual disputes...
i.e. "Your honor, 'My Company' has never issued a refund, but I personally have out of my own personal resources on two and only two occasions in these two sets of circumstances...."
Where we are dealing with Sole-Proprietorship and Owner/Ops, this distinction ("Me as a business" and "me as a person") is not likely to be made the way it has been put forth here, or granted the kind of weight we think it would. I merely suspect that there will be little to no regard for this "distinction," and any attempt to try to staunchly maintain and defend it (though we should try to in all cases in our business dealings, as has been said here) will not likely result in the kind of "saving grace" or CYA we are assuming it might or thinking it should, and the distinction is probably not too likely to be taken that seriously by a judge considering the issue.
In the judge's eyes, Tom or Cap (either as themselves, OR "doing business as X") either have histories of issuing refunds to X's clients, or they do not. That they chose to do it "out of a different account" is not likely to elicit any kind of special consideration. Legally, and in the eyes of the judge considering the dispute, we are still "Tom" and "Cap" - we are just Tom or Cap "doing business as..."
The conflation of straight business practices and so-called "personal interactions" with BUSINESS CLIENTS and REGARDING BUSINESS MATTERS are likely to be lumped together and viewed as one-and-the-same in the eyes of a judge. And if they aren't, they should be.
Just a thought... I'd love to hear a current/former judge weigh in on this one... I know our opinions and suspicions will keep on flying around all day long
G
Guest
Guest
It most certainly did. Go here to refresh your memory. That thread was about keeping a deposit as well.
Sounds To Go : Playing devil's advocate means you must have intimate knowledge of your advocacy. In this case, and with due respect, you tossing an opinion based on nothing but conjecture, and claiming an advocacy position is wrong though your point is well taken. What's more suspect is there's an application of logic being made, that which has nothing to do with law. LOL
A sole proprietorship has no more or no less protection under the law than a corporation, no more or no less than a native born has over a naturalized citizen.The biggest difference twixt sole-ownership versus LLC and up is when they lose a breach.
A sole proprietorship has no more or no less protection under the law than a corporation, no more or no less than a native born has over a naturalized citizen.The biggest difference twixt sole-ownership versus LLC and up is when they lose a breach.
LOL... all that's required for playing devil's advocate is putting forth a possible contrary position for the purposes of testing and argumentation. It's not necessary to have any specific actually existing advocate in mind, or to be representing one.
Your point about the protection and status of business entities is correct, and actually doesn't conflict with anything in my original post. I was not implying that the judge would not view the business entity as such or as what it is, but rather that he would/should view the actions of the sole-proprietor in this case as actions of the business entity itself. It would be the "personal actions" that are brought into a different context, and not the business practices of "the entity."
i.e., what DJ X's low-profile alter-ego decides to do "personally" when cutting a BUSINESS CLIENT a check would likely still be considered for all intents and purposes "a refund" for the purposes of precedence.
As for logic, I'm not any more guilty of using it - and the results no less suspect - than those who would submit that cutting a personal check "doesn't count" as "issuing a refund."
While "logic" might not be the determining factor in "law," it most definitely will come into play. Every possible and imaginable scenario cannot be accounted for in black and white in statutes, and when individual circumstances come into play that are not thusly "covered," the judge will then MOST CERTAINLY rely on logic and logic alone to come to a determination/ruling that remains, to the greatest extent possible, in-line with the INTENT of the laws and statutes that are there.
It is at this point that the judge, when looking for "precedent" in contractual consistency by DJ X most probably would, and SHOULD view DJ X's writing of a "personal check" to a client as a refund, and would take this into consideration for establishing said precedent - the account name on the check itself notwithstanding.
I don't want to derail the thread here... I think we should all strive to maintain a proper business entity and treat it as such at all times above-board.
I just think that this particular instance (refund from personal account vs. business account) is not anything even closely resembling the CYA it is being made or thought to be, and we should all be careful and not be too self-assured. That's all.
is children.
What Cap has offered and others have supported is the intelligent practice of having a well prepared contract that leaves little, if any room for interpretation.
However, given the proclivity of far too many to proclaim wiggle room in the most well established and universally accepted words, and the increasing number of "judges" that attempt to legislate from the judiciary, common sense and intelligence has been relegated to spectator status.
Even in these trying times, I rather be in line with Cap's practices than any devil's advocate.
How come a cash settlement wasnt pondered? There would be no trail in either case, and also could bite ya in the bum without a signed release from responsibility.
I've already agreed that the kinds of forms, practices, and integrity submitted are respectable and prudent. No one is saying otherwise so far as I can tell.
I just think its a little ill-advised to assume that a judiciary will be so quick to recognize such a distinction between DJ X as agent of X Enterprises and DJ X opening his personal wallet in the name of being a nice guy.
Most likely they would not.
And Rox - let's not forget that the purpose of the judiciary itself is in fact to INTERPRET the law and make judgments based on these same interpretations.
In light of that little reminder/realization, your implied (or seemingly implied anyway) condemnation of and disdain for them doing exactly that seems a little silly.
I just think its a little ill-advised to assume that a judiciary will be so quick to recognize such a distinction between DJ X as agent of X Enterprises and DJ X opening his personal wallet in the name of being a nice guy.
Most likely they would not.
And Rox - let's not forget that the purpose of the judiciary itself is in fact to INTERPRET the law and make judgments based on these same interpretations.
In light of that little reminder/realization, your implied (or seemingly implied anyway) condemnation of and disdain for them doing exactly that seems a little silly.
This is why I don't do contracts. If the client wants one, cool. I list what I offer and what I'll bring and what they'll pay.
No deposit neccessary unless it makes em feel better.
Payment due night of show.
If they cancel, its probably for a very good reason and I take the night off.
If its not for a good reason, I don't count my chickens before they hatch.
In 10 years business, I've never bailed on a client and I've had one cancellation.
I sleep pretty good at night and I don't have to pay anyone or spend anytime worrying about winning a matter based on sound business and/or principals.
Nonetheless, this thread is awesome and the debate is wonderful!
Call me crazy.
No deposit neccessary unless it makes em feel better.
Payment due night of show.
If they cancel, its probably for a very good reason and I take the night off.
If its not for a good reason, I don't count my chickens before they hatch.
In 10 years business, I've never bailed on a client and I've had one cancellation.
I sleep pretty good at night and I don't have to pay anyone or spend anytime worrying about winning a matter based on sound business and/or principals.
Nonetheless, this thread is awesome and the debate is wonderful!
Call me crazy.
Wow. Your ability to add words that were not written nor intended is endless, like a groung loop in a warehouse..
Legislate is not the same as interpret. To think other wise would be silly. That is why I wrote L E G I S L A T E.
BTW, make sure you know your adversaries' weaknesses as well as their abilities.
Ok ....
JT you're Crazy!
Some thinks me stupid too....
Please don't thank this post. lol
Then for the benefit of all, please enlighten us (specific REAL-WORLD examples encouraged) as to exactly what you mean by "and the increasing number of "judges" that attempt to legislate from the judiciary."
Because what you are *probably* going to point out (certain "liberal leanings" of said judiciary no doubt or you wouldn't hold them in such contempt) may very well be the simple results of their acts of interpretation which then turn into precedent and serve as the basis for future rulings in similar cases.
And that again - is just part of their job...
God forbid I should be right in that *prediction* as to your intent and responses because that would mean I'm actually several steps AHEAD OF YOU this whole time!
P.S. ~ Remember - If you are to prove me wrong in my assumptions regarding your position, please provide real-world examples of the judiciary attempting to "legislate" that do not fit in with what I said above.
Just so I don't have to bring out the dictionary, just give the damn deposit back!
No, that thread was about you quitting the business and a bride finding out about it and feeling uncomfortable about retaining your services (which I don't blame her). The thread was not about a deposit. You were the one who threw the "I'm keeping the deposit" in her face.
JTNichol : I am very surprised and somewhat disappointed that a person of your intellect does not see the importance and wisdom in the personal protection of a well written contract and the clarity of responsibilities it provides. Do you have liability insurance? Is your mobile DJ activities totally under the radar?
I trust in God, His mercy, His allowing of free will...all others sign here.
I trust in God, His mercy, His allowing of free will...all others sign here.