Legal Advice for Sole Trader

stuleech

steve1980 wrote: »

It's makes my 500 wedding photos all on DVD great value for money at £395!

You say you lost a couple of hundred, but in all fairness, the outlay for the two properties didn't cost you £200.

But he's made £200 by doing nothing from the money that has been paid from vendors to the estate agent for my services or so they believed.

You are right in didn't cost me £200 but like I said its more the principle of the estate agent being rather unscrupulous!

Acc72

stuleech wrote: »

But he's made £200 by doing nothing from the money that has been paid from vendors to the estate agent

The vendor paid the estate agent to provide photographs.

The estate agent provided the photographs.

The fact that the estate agent did not physically take the photographs himself is irrelevant.

The agreement between the estate agent and photographer is also irrelevant.

paddyrg

stuleech wrote: »

...the estate agent being rather unscrupulous!

stop the press!!!


;-)

Acc72

stuleech wrote: »

To me this seems quite straightforward.

He has sold my services to a vendor and they have paid for the services but I have never recieved this money but in my mind this is due to me.

It is straightforward.

The estate agent had an agreement with you (that you were happy with) and paid you accordingly.

The estate agent also had an agreement with the house owner that they were also happy with.

Neither of you are now happy because you understand that the estate agent has made a few quid in the middle - would you expect anything different ? - do you expect the estate agent to work for free ?

It is a bit like me complaining to my local shop because I paid 50p for a tin of beans and I have found out that he only paid 30p for them from the wholesalers (and the wholesaler then getting annoyed that he was only paid 30p for the beans when he could have sold them to me for 50p) !!

stuleech

Also the point you've missed was the estate agent told me categorically that he wouldn't be selling the services to the vendor directly as they wouldn't be willing to pay for it up front. Hence the agreement that he would pay on sale so it would come out of his pocket. If I had any inclination that money would be exchanging hands in advance I would have made a different agreement.

I don't understand how someone can resell something that they are not providing directly without the permission of the person who is providing the service.

Mistral001

You cannot do business with people who you cannot trust. You cannot trust someone who changes the basis of an agreement without telling you and you find out about it from someone else. You have to decide whether you will work with people you can trust or people you cannot. it is as simple as that.

One other point is that if this estate agent has treated you badly, he is likely to have treated other business people badly as well and when business people find out that you have a business connection with this estate agent your reputation as a business person will be damaged. That will probably lose you more money in the long run than staying with tis estate agent.

InsideInsurance

stuleech wrote: »

I do feel like the estage agent has acted immorally whatever the legal standing.

There are very few people with the word "agent" in their title that act in a purely moral way be it estate agents, recruitment agents, modelling agents etc etc etc

It is possibly a little harsh as most people primarily look after their own interests but they do have particularly low reputations.

Personally I am happy to take shared risk projects but I do want at least some up front payment if not to cover all costs then to at least create some greater incentive for them to continue trying their best to make the sale/ profit etc. I've seen too many web designers do a project for equity and the "partner"/ "client" decide after a few weeks of the site being live that it wouldnt work anyway and just never bother promoting/ advertising/ selling it etc. Designer left out of pocket a few weeks or months work.

Savvy_Sue

The law isn't always moral. learn from this experience, don't work with this agency again!

DCodd

stuleech wrote: »

Hi,

I'm a freelance photographer and last year I set up an agreement with an estate agent in the NW. I provided them with professional photography and related services.

The agreement was that I would be paid £200 per house but only when the house was sold. This was a trial and the thinking was that vendors wouldn't want the initial outlay and the estate agent also didn't want to pay outright for it initially untill it was tested. Seemed fair enough to me.

I provided these services for 3 houses. 1 of which sold and I was paid £200. The other two didn't sell and went to other estate agents and I wasn't paid. The risk I had taken didn't pay off so that was that. I have no problem there.

However I received an email from one of the vendors asking for copies of the images, I said he could have these if he covered the fee that I would have received for producing them (£200) he replied stating that he had already paid the estate agent half upfront (£100) for the services and would happily pay me the remainder which he did.

It turns out the estate agent without my knowledge had charged each vendor £100 upfront to cover some of his costs even though he stated that he wasn't going to ask vendors. To me this seems quite straightforward. He has sold my services to a vendor and they have paid for the services but I have never recieved this money but in my mind this is due to me. When the vendor found out that I had never been paid he was quite unhappy also which is understandable because he believed he had paid me through the estate agent.

Anyway I have not had much luck contacting the estate agent, he has been quite abrupt and is now ignoring me. Its not a lot of money but its more the principle for me especially as I am starting out.

My question really is would I have any chance with small claims or is it just a case of writing this one off?

Just a thought, but did your agreement include signing the copyright of the photos over to the Estate Agent? If not, does he have the legal rights to "sell on" the Photos? (which I assume is what he has done by charging the vendor £100 for the photos)

Mistral001

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It is possibly a little harsh as most people primarily look after their own interests but they do have particularly low reputations.

I laughed at this. It reminds me of the way Frasier's agent Beebie in the American sit-com, is portrayed. However, selling grandmother into slavery she would not do - at least not for a lousey 10%.


Do not let it get around, estate agents will start calling themselves consultants or advisers, etc.