Contract language regarding non-payment

Cmau · November 1, 2009

Hi guys,

I'm torn between two ways to go in my contract regarding late payments...

1. ****** name="Title" content=""> ****** name="Keywords" content=""> ****** http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> ****** name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> ****** name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> ****** name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/craigmaunder/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">  <style>  </style>  In the event the CLIENT fails to remit payment as specified, the PHOTOGRAPHER shall have the right to immediately terminate this contract with no further obligation, retain any monies already paid, and not attend this event.

2. ****** name="Title" content=""> ****** name="Keywords" content=""> ****** http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> ****** name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"> ****** name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> ****** name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 2008"> <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/craigmaunder/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">  <style>  </style>  THE CLIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS OF COLLECTION (sorry for the all caps)

Each seems to have its pros and cons (ie. #1 take what you've been paid and move on quickly and easily, #2 get paid the full amount that you were contracted for, but potentially have to duke it out in court with your clients). I'm leaning towards #1 just because it seems like less hassle. Curious to hear your opinions though. Thanks.

Cmau · November 1, 2009

Ugh... that was ugly... here they are again without all that formatting

1. <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/craigmaunder/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">  <style>  </style>  In the event the CLIENT fails to remit payment as specified, the PHOTOGRAPHER shall have the right to immediately terminate this contract with no further obligation, retain any monies already paid, and not attend this event.

2. <link rel="File-List" href="file://localhost/Users/craigmaunder/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_filelist.xml">  <style>  </style>  THE CLIENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS OF COLLECTION (sorry for the all caps)

ian408 · November 1, 2009

You might want to look through some sample contracts or consult with an attorney for better language. The first seems overly redundant and the second, ambiguous.

I don't know if you plan on offering services that might involve an outlay of cash on your part. If so, you should consider liquidated damages as well.

Best advice, use a standard contract or see an attorney.

Shima · November 1, 2009

My contract states that is the client does not finish paying by the morning of the wedding that I will not photograph their event. Until they have finished paying, I don't start shooting if there's a balance.

Cmau · November 1, 2009

Thanks guys,

Ian - I'm not worried about the exact wording per se. Both sentences are fine in the context of the rest of the paragraph they're in, I was just curious about the concept (ie shoot and maybe have to sue or don't shoot at all).

Shima - Thanks. As I said, I was leaning towards that, but nice to know that's how someone else does it too.

Cmau · November 1, 2009

... and I do intend to run it by a lawyer when it's done.

mpriest13 · November 2, 2009

Shima wrote:

My contract states that is the client does not finish paying by the morning of the wedding that I will not photograph their event. Until they have finished paying, I don't start shooting if there's a balance.

Just out of curiosity, has that ever happened?

Shima · November 2, 2009

mpriest13 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has that ever happened?

Nope, because it's great incentive for them to pay me

Works like a charm. In my early and naive days, I shot a wedding where the bride said she'd pay me the last $100 she owed me after the wedding date. I never received money, and as a result for non-payment she never received her photos (online or dvd). A year later she finally decided to send me that last $100 and I sent her the stuff. At that point I expected never to get the money though so it was a shock when she finally paid. Ironically she loved the work and we talk regularly now, but yeah, it was a wake up call back then. After that my contract clearly stated I need to be paid before I started shooting just so I could avoid a sticky situation like that every happening again.

Also, another reason for it, is I've been 2nd shooting with people enough times to see them either begging to be paid at the end of the evening, or complaining a month or two later about clients still owing balances, that I had wanted it in my contract like that. I don't want to be stressing about money with a client on their wedding day or after. I want to be in the moment w/ them all day and excited about it afterward still.

ian408 · November 2, 2009

Shima wrote:

I don't want to be stressing about money with a client on their wedding day or after. I want to be in the moment w/ them all day and excited about it afterward still.

This is a great philosophy.

cdonovan · November 2, 2009

Shima wrote:

I don't want to be stressing about money with a client on their wedding day or after. I want to be in the moment w/ them all day and excited about it afterward still.

I have the same wording...I've never had to deal with a non payment!

Contract language regarding non-payment

Comments