Am I overreacting about this contract change? - Page 4  

Always trust your gut.  I would tell him either he can sign the contract AS IS, or he doesn't need to get a cake from you.  I feel like it's pretty jerk-y that he walks into YOUR business and feels the need to change YOUR paperwork.  Ummmmmmmmmm NO!  He can find another baker to harass.

 

Also, let's say you decide to change the contract.  Where do the demands stop?  He seems like a pain in the neck to work with.  Heck no, $400 isn't nearly enough to make me work with someone like that!

This is how contracts are supposed to work, if one side feels the terms are unfair (as was the case here) they can and should request a change. It's not "jerky", it's being a smart customer. As a business owner you have the choice to make the change if you agree with it or reject the order.

Contracts are not set in stone, they are living documents that should be revisited regularly to make sure they still make sense based on the scope of your business.
The "demands" stop whenever you want them to stop. Agreeing to modify a contract clause for a customer does not mean that you must automatically agree to all other customer requests.

I know this is irrelevant but the guys a lawyer and hes ordering a cake costing only 400$ how tight lol. He seems like he's setting you up for trouble it's not worth 'potentially' getting yourself in to a whole lot of financial loss over one order, If I were you I would wiggle my way out of providing any services to him.

Can you explain what you mean by this statement?

 

You mean, because he's a lawyer, that they should be spending thousands on their cake? Are they tightwads because their cake 'only' costs $400? What do you think a lawyer's wedding cake ought to cost? Maybe they only want a smaller wedding - or do you think that because he's a lawyer they should have 800 guests - because they (assumably) can afford it?

 

Not all lawyers are rolling in it - many are small business owners, struggling to make ends meet - just like most everyone else.

 

What is wrong with questioning a contract? Or is it because he's a lawyer that it's wrong? I'm no attorney, but you'd better believe I read the fine print,  and if I don't like it I won't sign.

 

I think I'll repeat myself here:

 

I don't think I've ever seen a thread so full of gross active assumptions and gross active speculation!

 

The existing clause was great for her, but it was very one sided. Fairness to both parties is part of what you need to look at when you write a contract.

Imagine you hire a caterer to provide food for an event, and they have a similar clause in their contract. Some of the caterer's ingredients have spoiled. The caterer notices the spoilage but uses the ingredients anyway to save money, and several guests get sick, with some requiring hospitalization. If your state does not limit indemnity, the caterer would not legally be required to provide any form of compensation, even though it was 100% their fault, and they were aware of the problem before they served the food.

Does that make sense to you?

How do you even prove that they saw, recognized, and used spoiled food anyway?  I guess you could, but it would be tough.

 

And yes, it makes sense to me.  

 

And I will repeat what I said before...

 

There is nothing wrong with a debate - state reasons for you agreeing or disagreeing with someone's statement but be nice.  Comments calling members "stupid" or "rude" or whatever will be deleted.  If you are offended by a comment, skip the thread and move on.

It would be tough to prove that they knew, but if several people were sick it wouldn't be too difficult to trace it back to the source. Knowing in advance vs. not knowing would probably be the difference between gross negligence and regular negligence.
To clarify, you're saying it makes sense that if a vendor injures people and is 100% at fault they should not be legally required to provide any form of compensation?
This is a public discussion forum, if you don't like other people responding to your posts then you probably shouldn't post publicly.

Also, I will and have edited comments.  Please don't make me do that.  Some of you have pretty great info and are entitled to your opinions - I really don't have the time to red pen out the stuff that doesn't fit with being nice in expressing them. 

 

In the past Mods just delete threads that are to much of a headache to moderate - since I'm new I'm giving it a real go here out of love for you all so again, please be nice!

No, I meant your example made sense to me.  It was a good example.  My goodness...sheesh!

 

I understand this is a public forum, but boy-oh-boy...I believe in being overall positive and beneficial to the original question.  Yikes!  Other cake friends have warned me about CC forums, but I wanted to try it out anyways.  Goodness gracious...

Well, that's why I wanted to clarify.

My example corresponds to the original wording in the contract and illustrates why the original clause is not fair to the customer, thus a customer requesting a change to more fair wording should not be an issue.

 

As I read the above,  the OP has decided to alter the wording of her original contract and to keep the new, agreed upon change.

 

The original wording transferred too much liability to the customer--a person who would only have control of the cake AFTER it was delivered.  The original wording had the customer agreeing to take on responsibility for ANY AND ALL negligence BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER delivery of the cake.  The new wording is now balanced, as a good--and fair--contract should be.

 

I'm not sure why a smart customer, be he a lawyer or not, is being castigated here.  Not only did he request a reasonable change, but he ultimately compromised and agreed to the new wording proposed by the baker.  The US government should take note--that's how it's SUPPOSED to work.

 

Everyone should take the time to read--carefully--what they are asked to sign.  Saying later that you didn't see it, or didn't understand it, isn't a valid defense against the problems that will arise for you should the clause be invoked in a legal proceeding. 

 

I'm not a lawyer and as I said earlier, I WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED A CONTRACT CONTAINING THE ORIGINAL CLAUSE, EITHER.  

 

As Jason has said, contracts are living documents that should benefit both parties.

 

Rae

It was my comment you edited.

 

I never called anyone stupid. I would never do that on a forum - I don't know anyone here personally so I have no idea if they're stupid or not

 

I said that it was a stupid thing to write. Two completely different animals!

Edited by Godot - 11/28/12 at 12:22pm