Who's right? Wedding Tog vs Unhappy Customer/s

[virgal_tracy]

After Amphot's recent thread on a disreputable wedding videographer described as a photographer, this recent segment on ACA was brought to my attention. ACA Sensationalism (http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/video.aspx?videoid=088E02A1-CCC4-492B-9937-31A1A7D8D533) After viewing the photographers website and his packages I will say that it is confusing, but apparently he has delivered what was in his contract and the B&G are not happy because they did not receive what they "thought" they were going to get.

My biggest issue with this segment is the reporter stating that "although the photographer has done nothing illegal". This is then followed up with what the clients thought they were entitled to regardless of what the contract states.

I could rant further but I won't

[Adrian Fischer]

the link she no work...

[Cliff]

Try this link (http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8225341).
You'll get a spurious short add first and then the photography clip.

[ricktas]

Your link is to the UK article, not an ACA one? I am not sure why, but the link isnt working at present

[virgal_tracy]

Fixed the link.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Wow, I couldn't read the contract that they put up on the video but if the agreement was not for an album, I don't see how the photographer could have been expected to have produced one for the clients .......
Marianne and I only offer proofs in low res digital format and give them X number of higher res ones digitially which they pick from the low res images. Nothing about an album or physical prints anywhere.
Let's say one of our clients decides that they heard that we would give them an album and takes this up with ACA. They then show people the contract (which by the way, is in small font and possibly then construed as the derogartory 'fine print') - are we all of a sudden the bad guys and have to cough up what the couple want just because that was what was expected without being agreed on?

I suspect true journalism would have obtained the other side of the story as well. As it is, I don't know a thing about this photographer from 'flow' photography but if this were his sole source of income , that's a pretty harsh blow to have received on the basis of allegation.

[I @ M]

I think the stand out word is "proofs".
These are the days of instant gratification where pics appear on the back of the camera so people think that they should have them an hour after the wedding and have never heard the term proofs or seen watermarked 2"x2" prints laid out for them to select from and pay for at a later date.
After all, didn't all that guff disappear in our (at least my generations) parents prehistoric times. :D

[geoffsta]

I think the "fine print" should be taken out of any contract.
Togs who charge big bucks should not hide in fine print what service they provide.
The contract should contain dot formed "What You Get" for your buck. And make sure the client understands every point clearly.

With many "I just bought a DSLR, I'll do you wedding" people around, professional togs cannot afford any bad publicity, or ill feeling.

[KeeFy]

Absolutely agree with geoffsta. There are so many wanna be wedding photogs these days that people are "spoilt" for choice. Why bother paying thousands of dollars when you can pay hundreds? They typically only realise their mistake after the once in a life time event is over ( well or first wedding for some ). I have covered weddings (as a friend and was the 2nd, 3rd or 4th photographer) and it's really not as easy as it seems. It only seems right to get rid of the fine print so that the photog will have business in the future.

[Xebadir]

I think in all fairness here...this guy isn't exactly the cheapo model. He's charging the full rates.
Just thought i'd go to hit website to check out his packages. They are ambigious, and they do leave him open somewhat. Emphasises the need to be very very precise in exactly what you are providing the client.
To quote, this is all photographic products offered in the silver package which is referenced: (includes stuff from bronze)
Unlimited photos taken on the day (approx. 600-800)
: : All digital proofs are yours to keep on CD!
: : A 20 side genuine leather album created by our graphic designer, as part of the album credit
: : Your choice of edge-to-edge digital pages, matte pages or a combination
: : A digital flip album of 250 FREE printed proofs valued at $225. Only 0.90c / image for over 250 images
: : THREE matte page sides converted to edge-to-edge page sides FREE valued at $99

Typical witchhunt from ACA, the photographer probably is a bit sly about things from the look of him, but looks the usual one sided story.

[Gypsy]

I agree, this is very one sided.

I also think it's unfair that the couples are being shown as the 'victims' because they 'thought' they were getting this but only got that.
Any other industry, if you sign a contract than it's too bad if you read it wrong! It's my job to read and understand before I sign on the dotted line.
People need to realise, if they are unsure of something (like the term 'proofs') then it's your responsibility to ASK! "Hey when you say we receive 250 proofs, what exactly are we getting?" Not that hard really.

I don't know, perhaps this guy did lead them down the wrong path, it's hard to know when we only hear one side.

[ricktas]

I don't watch ACA or other gutter tv ( can't call it journalism). I used to, but realised it is all about creating drama and not a thing about the truth. I do not believe using these sorts of shows is productive at resolving anything. I can't comment on the video as I refuse to watch anything that ACA, Today Tonight etc put out. Their past history tells me they would not let the truth get in the way of a good sensationalist story, and even acknowledging it, makes them rub their hands together with glee, its all about ratings.

The best thing everyone can do is turn off the tv, if their ratings drop low enough, they will get rid of the shows (I can only dream).

[Longshots]

Cheap one sided journalism with no respect for their own credentials at displaying a fair and reasonable reporting.

While Flow Photography doesnt appear to be a member of any professional association, its worth noting that despite refusing attempts from AIPP to offer an alternative view to their typical "lets bag a wedding photographer" (a regular spot on Ch7, seems ACA is falling to the same level), that currently there is a very small comment on the ACA link that states that this type of thing could be averted by following AIPP standards.

It seems crystal clear to me that the package pricing on the photographers website is ambiguous and confusing. OK so for whatever reason, this individual photographer is sparking some confusion. Is that worthy of degrading the entire industry with suggestions of "dont sign anything on the day" - excuse me ? Why not ? Like any contract each state has its own cooling off period, and its illegal to use and unfair contract in business ( re "unconscionable behaviour". A contract allows people to see in black and white what they get, what their agreement is. Better to have it in writing then not at all. So I dont think that there was any plausible reason for ACA to beat up this lame story, where clearly the client has not understood, and one would have to assume that the photographer has done their best to clarify, which he did within the highly inflammatory, and clearly edited to present the photographer in the worst light.

Its worth noting that the (unhappy, belligerence, threatening, hostile) client , was given all of the hi resolution images to seal the deal of the photographer receiving the money for the job completed - that was never part of the package deal. Where was the balanced reporting ACA ? Perhaps ACA should do some self counselling on their bullying tactics. Highly unimpressed.

[jasevk]

Couldn't agree more with William...

[virgal_tracy]

Is that worthy of degrading the entire industry with suggestions of "dont sign anything on the day" - excuse me ? Why not ?

The next story will be "I went to my photographer, took my contract away because I was advised not to sign on the day, and when I was ready to sign they had given my wedding date to someone else"

Never a story of "My photographer was brilliant and gave us more than we could ever have asked for, even though it wasn't in the contract"

[Longshots]

And btw I thought that photographer handled himself very well with someone jabbing a finger in his face :) I take my hat off to him for that alone.

I have a suggestion ACA instead of going for the easy stories, how about following up on the excellent "boy who was bullied and eventually fought back" story ? Surely I wouldnt be the only one wondering why this mature and intelligent individual had the intelleligence to realise that the system had utterly failed him, that the school had failed in protecting him, and that someone in the chain of command in the education system should be held accountable for that complete failure ? Now that would be reporting and it would also take some effort.

[KeeFy]

The fact that the package is ambiguous has made me question the photographer on his intentions, but we'll never know if it's intentional or not will we? BUT! A contract IS a contract. It's the couple's fault for not asking questions or understanding the contract properly, they were not forced to sign with a gun pointed at their heads. Going around whinging about not receiving their expectations is of no use.

[squizzytaylor]

I think that is important to understand that the bride and grooms job is to worry about the wedding as a whole, not picky details, for my mind it is the photographers job to clearly and concisely explain exactly what is or isn't included in the package upfront.
It is the photographers business and he or she should know and be able to explain every detail of the package in easy to understand language so the couple know exactly what to or what not to expect. it is not the job of the couple to have to understand the
ins and outs, jargon and practices of the photgraphic industry.

GT

[Longshots]

No I'm sorry I disagree completely.

Its the customer who's responsibility it is to check the details.

The bride and grooms role and responsibility is to manage their wedding and understand the "picky details".

And the photographer is no different to the many different suppliers for a typical wedding. I've almost never ever heard of, or experienced someone booking a wedding photographer straight off a website; there is always going to be at the very least a discussion. And it is highly likely that the position of the additional cost of the album would have been discussed and explained. Its also worth repeating that any ANY contract should be carefully explained and read by any prospective customer/purchaser.

And one other thing to contemplate while you want to pass on the responsibility issue, and that is, that another common practice for any prospective bride and groom is that they would have approached several different photographers before choosing one that suits them. I personally would believe that nuclear power is 10000% safe (which clearly it isnt) before I believe that two people (bear in mind that both the Bride and Groom) misread the photographers website, misread the contract, and misunderstood the photographer explaining what was included in the booked package - plus the general viewing audience of ACA is also expected to believe that the other photographers this couple approached also failed to explain what a proof is, what is included in the package, and what their purchase actually includes. I will not accept that they didnt have the same conversation with at least one other photographer prior to booking this one. So ACA and others expect me to believe that all of those different suppliers would have misled this couple ? I dont think so.

After many years dealing with clients, it amazes me how wonderful some can be, and on the other hand there is always one bad apple out there that I have the misfortune of meeting - albeit rare and on a once every ten years or so basis - and I can assure you that they exist, they can be absolutely appalling. Last year was one of those clients who commissioned me for a shoot for a promotional brochure on their work. All was agreed in advance, two days of pre planning, three days of shooting (during which all images were checked and loved by the client), four days of post production work - all delivered (client rang to say she loved them). Invoice sent with delivered work - wait, wait, waiting.......... ring two weeks later, after unanswered emails, assistant finally responds - "lost your invoice" - send it again. This went on for three months. Five months later and I'm sending letters that are devoid of patience and understanding. Finally I get passed a message, "she doesnt like them, she's cancelled the brochure, she's changed her mind". Seven months later and I finally agree to a 2/3 balance of the outstanding amount, and they agree not to use the images.

So sometimes it can be the customers that should be held accountable !

[KeeFy]

After many years dealing with clients, it amazes me how wonderful some can be, and on the other hand there is always one bad apple out there that I have the misfortune of meeting - albeit rare and on a once every ten years or so basis - and I can assure you that they exist, they can be absolutely appalling. Last year was one of those clients who commissioned me for a shoot for a promotional brochure on their work. All was agreed in advance, two days of pre planning, three days of shooting (during which all images were checked and loved by the client), four days of post production work - all delivered (client rang to say she loved them). Invoice sent with delivered work - wait, wait, waiting.......... ring two weeks later, after unanswered emails, assistant finally responds - "lost your invoice" - send it again. This went on for three months. Five months later and I'm sending letters that are devoid of patience and understanding. Finally I get passed a message, "she doesnt like them, she's cancelled the brochure, she's changed her mind". Seven months later and I finally agree to a 2/3 balance of the outstanding amount, and they agree not to use the images.

So sometimes it can be the customers that should be held accountable !

Maybe COD would be best? I really don't know how the industry works, but i always liked a COD approach to everything. Credit is over rated.

[arthurking83]

Gee I'm glad I watched that!

Have never watched, nor have I ever been interested in ACA and others of that ilk, and that was the worst 4 or so minutes of television I've seen in a long time.
I suppose it simply re-iterates how much I'm not missing out on. :p

Loved the comment from the old finger pointing guy ...

it says 250 proofs ... As I said before, layman, to me a proof is a picture

As the editors job of this 'news' item, they should have cut the story at that point and consigned it to the '[Shift]Delete' dustbin of history.

Moronic reporting at it's best.

[Longshots]

Maybe COD would be best? I really don't know how the industry works, but i always liked a COD approach to everything. Credit is over rated.

Exactly - thats not how the industry works I'm afraid. Credit may be over rated to you, but in the commercial world, its the norm. Either accept it or get no work.

[beau]

Guys, there's some misinformation in this thread that I must clear up, otherwise some of you may find yourself in similar trouble in future.

I'm referring to the legal issues surrounding contracts with consumers and it's a little technical, so forgive me. I should point out that while I haven't quite finished my legal qualification, I have completed Consumer and Contract Law. As such, my advice isn't that of a legal professional, but a student. I suggest you consult a registered legal practitioner to confirm my advice before acting on it.

Right, now that that's out of the way...

The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth) was the overriding legislation applying to corporate dealings with customers until January this year, when it was updated. It is now known as the Australian Consumer Law 2010 (Cth). Some of the changes go directly to some of the things being discussed here.

A few people have posted above that it is up to the COMSUMER to check the fine print of a contract and make sure they understand what they are entitled to receive and what they are entitled to pay. Essentially a concept of "Buyer Beware". In the past, this theory would have held some weight, but not any more.

Companies now have an obligation to ensure that customers understand the terms and conditions of a contract. Apologies for the capitals, but this is important;

IF THE CUSTOMER CAN SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN IT IS NOT BINDING.

Again, apologies for the caps, but that is essentially the main change. And it is a massive change.

So the onus is no longer on the customer, but on the company supplying the goods to make sure the consumer is aware of all T's & C's. This may sound unfair, but you can thank organisations like the mobile phone providers and their awful contracts with lots of fine print for the need to have the laws changed.

So, how do we make sure we protect ourselves?

Checklists.

When you present your contract to the customer, you should have another document as well, which basically has a list of everything you will supply and what they will be required to give you in return. It should also contain a list of all the numbers of each condition of the contract. You should go through the contract personally with the customer and make sure they understand everything and tick it off on the checklist as you go. Then, when your checklist is complete, you should both sign the checklist and both get a copy. Obviously date it as well. Use it as part of your contract. This is your confirmation from the customer that they understand the contract fully

If the customer wishes to get independent legal advice, they should do this before you do your checklist with them.

If the customer makes changes to the package after signing the initial contract, you should make sure you put it writing and at the very least get them to send you an email confirming the changes so you have something in writing. It is very difficult to prove the contents of a phone conversation, but something written will help.

Now, some of you will be thinking that I've been doing a lot of talking about companies and not sole traders or partnerships. This is because the Australian Consumer Law is Federal Legislation, and the Federal Government can only exercise legislative power over things as granted to it by s51 of the Commonwealth Constitution. The relevant ones here are corporations, inter-state trade and telecommunications. So if you are a registered company it applies to you, or if you are not a company but sell your services across State borders or utilise telecommunications for business (and it could be argued that websites, telephones, etc. all fit that description) the the Commonwealth law applies to you. If none of those things apply then you will fall under the relevant State Law for consumer protection, such as The Sale Of Goods Act (NSW). While the State laws are generally not as onerous as the new Federal law, it is expected that they will toughen up to mirror the new Federal provisions.

Sorry if that's all a bit technical, but it's unavoidable with legal stuff. I've tried to keep it simple, but in doing so may have made it too simplistic and missed stuff, so please consult a lawyer for proper advice.

Hope that clears things up.

Basically, that awful old mantra, "the customer is always right" has now been put into legislation... unless you can prove them wrong. Protect yourself by making sure you explain your contract (all of it) and have your customer sign to say they understand.

[Dylan & Marianne]

IF THE CUSTOMER CAN SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN IT IS NOT BINDING.



how you can prove it that you didn't understand the terms of the contract?
Surely that just becomes a 'he says /she says' battle of assertions??
for example , if the client says "It wasn't made clear what a proof was" and the tog says "I told them what a proof was" - who's word is going to be taken as true?? don't know much about legalities but there seems nothign solid in that statement at all.

[I @ M]

"It wasn't made clear what a proof was" and the tog says "I told them what a proof was" - who's word is going to be taken as true?? don't know much about legalities but there seems nothign solid in that statement at all.

Dylan, with the massive amount of legalese involved in everything these days a photographer in the business would be doing himself a favour to have a solicitor draw up an "idiot proof" contract.

The contract would contain something along the lines of a " a proof is a heavily watermarked 4x6 photograph as a sample of the image that you can choose and pay for as a final print".

At least that is my take on things, I know when it comes to such matters I prefer to pay someone (with appropriate insurance) to figure out the fine points.

[mongo]

Mongo agrees with Beau.

There is a little more however. What is the contract is not always limited to the written agreement. Sure, a lot of the disputes arise out of “I did not understand the contract”. However, quite a few more disputes arise out of “yes, I agree that is what the written part of the contract say, but he also told me that I would get “X” as well even though he did not write it in our contract”. The latter is very difficult to predict and guard against during the formation of the agreement.

In formal business contract, lawyers used to insert a clause to the effect that the written contract forms the whole of the agreement and it can not be varied unless also varied in writing. This is an attempt to exclude any possibility of verbal changes (and any misunderstanding about what the verbal change may have been). This method may not be useful in the more common day to day consumer transactions.

Unfortunately, this will be an ongoing area of difficulty for the situation mentioned in this thread.

PS – journalist – who cares ?!

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks for the clarification mongo and Andrew!

[beau]

how you can prove it that you didn't understand the terms of the contract?
Surely that just becomes a 'he says /she says' battle of assertions??
for example , if the client says "It wasn't made clear what a proof was" and the tog says "I told them what a proof was" - who's word is going to be taken as true?? don't know much about legalities but there seems nothign solid in that statement at all.

The questions you raise would be a matter for a jury to determine. If they believe the client, then the contract will not stand. Simple.

The checklist I mentioned will solve your problems. Document everything.

Mongo is also correct, anything you say to a client up until the point where they sign the contract, is part of the contract, so document everything.

[kiwi]

Youa lso have to be very careful in pre-meeetinsg with the client when showing them albums or samples, there are cases in my industry where as part of a sales pitch clients are shown goods that are not specified in the contract and the court have determined that unless specifically excluded in the contract (as opoosed to not included) then the customer has the right to expect those goods in their deliverable (think wedding albums, prints etc)

[ricktas]

Ultimately, we may find all business end up doing what many medical professionals do. Video the consultation as proof and evidence of what was said during the consultation/meeting. This has reduced the rate of court cases in the legal profession. I think others who use contractual negotiations as part of their workplace will, in future, need to consider this option as a protection mechanism. After all webcams and disks are cheap, and its an easy way to record what was said, and can simply alleviate a court case in an instant.

It is amazing how a dispute from a person is quickly quashed when they view a video where the information has been both verbally discussed and given in written form

[Longshots]

Gu

IF THE CUSTOMER CAN SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN IT IS NOT BINDING.

Again, apologies for the caps, but that is essentially the main change. And it is a massive change.



Yay - lets start hitting the telcos, my rates, specifically my water bill, and many other unfair and ridiculous terms and conditions.

While not questioning your informed view, I think this will be pulled apart in the courts in a very short space of time. Much as I'd like this to afford some protection, I have my doubts that it would seriously stand up in court. I suppose time will tell :)

[ricktas]

Agree William. If all it means is that I can say " I didn't understand" to get out of a contract, what is the point of even having them. I could use it to get out of everything I have ever signed.

If this is true (the law change) then Australia needs to get some Lawyers with morals who become politicians, cause the lot that introduced this law need lining up against a wall and given a Breaker Morant style lesson.

[Mark L]

Checklists.

When you present your contract to the customer, you should have another document as well, which basically has a list of everything you will supply and what they will be required to give you in return. It should also contain a list of all the numbers of each condition of the contract. You should go through the contract personally with the customer and make sure they understand everything and tick it off on the checklist as you go. Then, when your checklist is complete, you should both sign the checklist and both get a copy. Obviously date it as well. Use it as part of your contract. This is your confirmation from the customer that they understand the contract fully


This seems like fair advise. When getting major extensions done to our house, something very similar to this was part of the process, before final contracts were signed.

[Longshots]

Ooops sent same message twice sorry :)

Perhaps what I should ask is a link or specific reference to this change in law - as I keep reasonably up to date with these things, it would appear I've missed what is clearly a monumental change ?

[Kym]

http://www.ocba.sa.gov.au/acl/index.html

Thanks Beau. So get customers to sign off the check-list that you take them through signing they understand the contract. Pretty simple :D

[Longshots]

Nah sorry - If thats the link, I'm well aware of it, and after checking with a few legal friends I cant quite swallow the :

IF THE CUSTOMER CAN SHOW THAT THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT, THEN IT IS NOT BINDING. theory.

I'd be more confident of its existence if I can read it in black and white - so as I said please advise.

I've read the ACL Australian Consumer Law extensively (and for what its worth used the unconsionable conduct term with photographic competition organisers very effectively already), and unless the contract is unfair, there doesnt appear to be something covering the quote in caps.

Happy to be educated though, so feel free to support the claim with a link to a government supported site please - and specific quote from the same ?

[beau]

You can do your own research on it. I raised it and said to get advice. I'm not interested in a long drawn out discussion on it or looking up relevant sections.

It's not about unfair terms or unconscionable conduct, it's more to do with misleading conduct. If a consumer can show that they believe they were misled, then you're in trouble. "Misunderstanding" and "misled" are not that far apart... not for a good lawyer anyway. Even most (if not all) state fair trading legislation deals with misleading conduct.

Ultimately, I don't care what you do with your business. Get advice, do as recommended. Simple. To not get advice is just asking for trouble... just like believing the word of anyone on an internet forum.

Just remember that the principal of caveat emptor will not necessarily save you.

[ricktas]

"Misunderstanding" and "misled" are not that far apart... not for a good lawyer anyway.

And there is the crux of it. For me (and I reckon most folk) there is a world of difference between a misunderstanding and being misled. You say 'not for a good lawyer" and therein lies the issue that causes the public to have the view of lawyers that they do.

[kiwi]

I reckon its a croc, misled and misunderstanding are as far apart as tables and carrots

[beau]

And there is the crux of it. For me (and I reckon most folk) there is a world of difference between a misunderstanding and being misled. You say 'not for a good lawyer" and therein lies the issue that causes the public to have the view of lawyers that they do.

Yep, you're absolutely right. But it is what it is, and ultimately these are all questions for a jury. It is quite easy to see a case where a photographer is claiming that the customer misunderstood the contract, while the customer argues that they believe the contract implied different things to what it actually did. It's a grey area and one that legal minds can exploit, and when it is up to a jury to make the decision emotion can come into it to some extent.

All I was suggesting is a really simple method of protecting yourself, that is all. If you get into a similar situation and can show the court that you went through the contract clause by clause and had your client sign off that they understood it, then you are a long way towards winning your case. It's partly about being seen to be responsible and open.

We can argue all we like about the morals of lawyers and the operation of the legal system, but nothing will change it. The best thing anyone can do is take steps to try and keep themselves out of the courts, and that is all I was trying to help with. If you're armed with good documents, a client's lawyer is less likely to pursue you.

[ScottM]

Just being devil's advocate...

How would you know that a client has understood what's been explained to them? That is, someone could just nod their head as if to convey understanding, have they taken it in, are they aware of every legal responsibility, for and against, of each clause in a contract? Agreed that a checklist may assist - but that's another legal document, and without using the legal terms, the client can then also claim they've been misled, misunderstood, or not even informed about the detail of one of the tick boxes.

Definitely get legal advice (and not just legal opinion) over contracts or agreements if you're making any sort of commitments through it. Most people wouldn't, thinking contract for wedding photos is a pretty simple straightforward agreement.

We really are turning into a nanny state if people can't take responsibility themselves. (Oops, we were turning into a dead end alley, my brakes have failed. Damn Subaru, I'll sue them because I was misled into thinking the red brake light was telling me I have brakes!)

[ATP]

I understand that many people on AP are paid photographers...and that any negative media attention on the industry isn't helpful...but we all need to accept that in every profession there are always cowboys. ACA had other couples who felt ripped-off by this man also...and he's been fighting a number of his clients in court for several years. Couples getting married...are easy prey for any sort of wedding professional hell-bent on doing the wrong thing and ripping them off...we see it in the media all the time. So just because you don't like programs like ACA...doesn't mean this photographer was unfairly "done over". In the majority of instances...where there's smoke, there's fire...IMHO.

[beau]

Just being devil's advocate...

How would you know that a client has understood what's been explained to them? That is, someone could just nod their head as if to convey understanding, have they taken it in, are they aware of every legal responsibility, for and against, of each clause in a contract? Agreed that a checklist may assist - but that's another legal document, and without using the legal terms, the client can then also claim they've been misled, misunderstood, or not even informed about the detail of one of the tick boxes.

Definitely get legal advice (and not just legal opinion) over contracts or agreements if you're making any sort of commitments through it. Most people wouldn't, thinking contract for wedding photos is a pretty simple straightforward agreement.

We really are turning into a nanny state if people can't take responsibility themselves. (Oops, we were turning into a dead end alley, my brakes have failed. Damn Subaru, I'll sue them because I was misled into thinking the red brake light was telling me I have brakes!)

Couldn't agree more mate. The checklist I suggested isn't a cure-all, it is just a tool to show that you have been open and transparent and made the effort to ensure that your customer understood the contract. Ultimately displaying that you made an effort to inform and explain will go a long way to discrediting any claim by the customer that they were misinformed.

I work for a very large kitchen renovation company and our salespeople actually go into all of this during their presentation to the customer. When presenting the quote we show them the contracts we use (which are actually produced by Fair Trading) and we also show them our checklist and explain what the procedure will be regarding the contract and the checklist should they go ahead with the job. Our salespeople find it a really valuable tool, as it shows customers that we are totally upfront and don't attempt to hide anything, and it means that any other company they talk to who doesn't do the same is viewed less favourably. We actually win work by using this system because customers feel safe engaging us to do their work.

So it can also be a useful tool to help you stand out from the crowd and reinforce your professionalism and trustworthiness, which are obviously important traits people look for when choosing a wedding (or other) photographer.

[Stingray]

.... this recent segment on ACA ....
^^^^^^ says it all.. like others.. I have stopped watching ACA/TT etc because it is always seems bias and sensationalism that win out over truth ..
yes (before people arc up) I do believe there are some stories they do that need to be shown (case in point this carpark mob that are being brought into suburban shopping centres...now that's a rort!)
but once these things are shown, the people who are riveted to the TV watching them will believe hole heartedly its the truth .. which can be too bad for the person who has really done bothign really wrong (except maybe not been as clear as they could have been to their client)

[ricktas]

Maybe we need a clause in our contracts, in the fine print that asks if the client watches ACA/TT and if they do..don't take the job on :lol:

[kiwi]

Firstly, Derek smith story is the truth, he's not been to court yet but there's not a soul denying what he's done

Secondly, ACA/TT sensationalist stories but do have to have a basis of truth due to media conditions and litigation

Rick, super idea, would weed out the bottom 50% I think