Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating Business › Am I overreacting about this contract change?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Am I overreacting about this contract change? - Page 4  

post #46 of 60

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!

post #47 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndsayscott View Post

I feel like it's pretty jerk-y that he walks into YOUR business and feels the need to change YOUR paperwork.
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.
Quote:
Also, let's say you decide to change the contract.  Where do the demands stop?
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.
post #48 of 60

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.

post #49 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amina2 View Post

I know this is irrelevant but the guys a lawyer and hes ordering a cake costing only 400$ how tight lol.
Can you explain what you mean by this statement?
post #50 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amina2 View Post

I know this is irrelevant but the guys a lawyer and hes ordering a cake costing only 400$ how tight lol.

 

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!

post #51 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft View Post

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.
 
 

 

I completely understand that; however, hers already made sense IMO.  Now, obviously in his opinion, he didn't think it was the way he wanted it.  All I know is that it seems to be a change that changes the tone of the contract in a negative way.  If it were me, I would decline the change and move on with my business elsewhere.  I always read the fine print, but most of the time I respect the business owner and their guidelines.  If I don't like the way they run their business (fine print and such) I go elsewhere.
Separate note:  this is obviously a HOT topic based a lot in opinions of individuals.  However, I don't feel like people should get onto this thread and try to start arguments.  She asked a question, so answer it for her.  We all don't agree--that's ok!  Nit-picking other people's answers is really quite tiresome and not beneficial to her original question.
post #52 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndsayscott View Post

I completely understand that; however, hers already made sense IMO.
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?
post #53 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft View Post


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...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndsayscott View Post

I don't feel like people should get onto this thread and try to start arguments.  She asked a question, so answer it for her.  We all don't agree--that's ok!  Nit-picking other people's answers is really quite tiresome and not beneficial to her original question.
post #54 of 60

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.

post #55 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndsayscott View Post

How do you even prove that they saw, recognized, and used spoiled food anyway?  I guess you could, but it would be tough.
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.
Quote:
And yes, it makes sense to me.
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?
Quote:
And I will repeat what I said before...
This is a public discussion forum, if you don't like other people responding to your posts then you probably shouldn't post publicly.
post #56 of 60

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!

post #57 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_kraft View Post

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?

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...

post #58 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyndsayscott View Post

No, I meant your example made sense to me.  It was a good example.
Well, that's why I wanted to clarify. icon_smile.gif

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.
post #59 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenmat View Post


After further thought, I have decided to keep the clause in my contract from here on out. Gross active negligence in a cake setting would mean that I actively caused someone bodily harm by being negligent in a "big" way. Like putting staples in the cake or somehow causing it to explode and injure the guests. Since I would never be actively negligent anyway, I feel this is fair and as others have said, more neutral. 

 

 

 

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

I love you, but your emergency is not my crisis!

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.--Terry Pratchett (b.194
I love you, but your emergency is not my crisis!

They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance.--Terry Pratchett (b.194
post #60 of 60

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 birthday.gif

 

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


Edited by Godot - 11/28/12 at 12:22pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cake Decorating Business
This thread is locked  
Cake Central › Cake Forums › Cake Talk › Cake Decorating Business › Am I overreacting about this contract change?