Can my photographer increase price - paid for album never received it.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

Question for unholyangel:

OP has seemingly admitted some level of fault for the delay in completing the album (stating this and paying the extra).

My question is, to what extent does the company have rights to charge more money for the prolonged customer journey lifespan caused mainly by OP? If we were talking about a consumer then they would be able to claim "compensation" for a delay, does the seller have similar rights?

I guess the gist of my post is; did the OP breach their contract in some way?

Well as a previous poster said they knew photographers who put strict time limits in their contracts.

I'd expect that of any experienced photographer. As well as a possible limitation on the number of proofs that will be provided/time spent on editing. Of course that time limit would only apply if the delay was within the consumers control rather than something within the suppliers control.

That would mean that anything over and above what the contract states is chargeable.

The photographer is the business entity in the b2c contract and as we know, businesses have far less protection than consumers because they are supposed to be savvy when it comes to contracting.

Tbh I find it quite bizarre that a lot of people are jumping on the OP due to the delay. For all we know, every single attempt at contact has been initiated by the OP - with the photographer only sending proofs once the OP has requested them several times.

ETA: Forgot to add, OP can't be in breach of a term that doesn't exist. Each party can only be bound to the obligations they agreed to accept at the time of contracting.

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

Tbh I find it quite bizarre that a lot of people are jumping on the OP due to the delay. For all we know, every single attempt at contact has been initiated by the OP - with the photographer only sending proofs once the OP has requested them several times.

Yea, the OP basically said that there was some of this from the photographer BUT they also took some blame in the delay (citing numerous family reasons). Nobody is jumping on them in a bad way, just trying to work out if this could play a part in the whole issue.

I was curious to know whether an unnecessary delay by the OP could give way for the retailer charging more in a compensation sort of way much the same way a consumer would also look at doing. OP has accepted to pay the 50 pounds, and they have expressed some level of fault. Could their delay have caused the retailer to lose out on 50 pounds in some way? Just curious really!

ETA: Forgot to add, OP can't be in breach of a term that doesn't exist. Each party can only be bound to the obligations they agreed to accept at the time of contracting.

Yea true.

I was thinking more along the lines of the OP causing the seller to do extra work for free due to the OP's delay. Breaching terms more in the fact that the OP caused a delay in the completion of the contract, and as such the seller suffered.

Again, I'm more speculating rather than 'having a go' at someone.

unholyangel

daytona0 wrote: »

Yea, the OP basically said that there was some of this from the photographer BUT they also took some blame in the delay (citing numerous family reasons). Nobody is jumping on them in a bad way, just trying to work out if this could play a part in the whole issue.

I was curious to know whether an unnecessary delay by the OP could give way for the retailer charging more in a compensation sort of way much the same way a consumer would also look at doing. OP has accepted to pay the 50 pounds, and they have expressed some level of fault. Could their delay have caused the retailer to lose out on 50 pounds in some way? Just curious really!



Yea true.

I was thinking more along the lines of the OP causing the seller to do extra work for free due to the OP's delay. Breaching terms more in the fact that the OP caused a delay in the completion of the contract, and as such the seller suffered.

Again, I'm more speculating rather than 'having a go' at someone.

But its only "extra work" if the original contract didnt allow for it iyswim?


Again going back to my earlier example. £250 per room - it shouldnt matter if it takes them 5 hours or 10, you agreed the price per room. If they say "i'll give you 10 hours of decorating for £250" and the room isnt finished at the end of those 10 hours, they don't need to finish the room for free.

They cannot change the price for providing what they agreed to provide AFTER the contract has been agreed by both parties.

And even if they were providing something over and above what the contract provides for, they'd still have to tell the customer either a) how much it will cost or b) how the price will be calculated (ie £25 per hour) AND the customer would have to accept it before it would be binding on the customer.

Didnt mean anyone was having a go sorry Just meant that I'm surprised so many people have decided the OP is solely to blame here purely because OP said they did cause some of the delays.

And its puzzling, because the law favours consumers. Yet the replies on this thread tonight seem to reverse that and treat the business as the protected party and the OP as the one who should be savvy in all things contract.

Keep_pedalling

The photographer may have already taken the photographs but the cost of getting the album printed would only be be paid by him / her now, and undoubtedly the cost of that will be higher now than 5 years ago, so it seems reasonable that the customer pay for that difference.

unholyangel

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The photographer may have already taken the photographs but the cost of getting the album printed would only be be paid by him / her now, and undoubtedly the cost of that will be higher now than 5 years ago, so it seems reasonable that the customer pay for that difference.

12.1 The OFT's objections to variation clauses generally are set out under Group
10. If a contract is to be considered balanced, each party should be sure of
getting what they were promised in exchange for providing the
'consideration' they agreed to provide. A clause allowing the supplier to
increase the price – varying the most important of all of the consumer's
contractual obligations – has clear potential for unfairness.

12.3 A price variation clause is not necessarily fair just because is not
discretionary – for example, a right to increase prices to cover increased
costs experienced by the supplier. Suppliers are much better able to
anticipate and control changes in their own costs than consumers can
possibly be. In any case, such a clause is particularly open to abuse,
because consumers can have no reasonable certainty that the increases imposed on them actually match net cost increases.

10.1 A right for one party to alter the terms of the contract after it has been
agreed, regardless of the consent of the other party, is under strong
suspicion of unfairness. A contract can be considered balanced only if both
parties are bound by their obligations as agreed.

10.2 If a term could be used to force the consumer to accept increased costs or
penalties, new requirements, or reduced benefits, it is likely to be
considered unfair whether or not it is meant to be used in that way. A
variation clause can upset the legal balance of the contract even though it
was intended solely to facilitate minor adjustments, if its wording means it
could be used to impose more substantial changes. This applies to terms
giving the supplier the right to make corrections to contracts at its
discretion and without liability.

As I have said from the beginning. It will depend what the agreement actually was - and if he has put a period for performance as part of the contract. He cannot retrospectively change the terms or add new ones - especially on price.

bells_on_it

Thanks for your responses. Unholyangel thanks for the advice too, like you suggest I wasn't trying to get anything out of the change of photographer I just wanted to appeal to his better nature. There was no point in complaining at the time regarding his non attendance since it was on my wedding day I found out. I was hardly in a position to send the replacements away. I hate awkwardness and bad feeling and felt that there was no point in creating a fuss as at the end of the day where would it get me, potentially in a situation where I had no photographs....

There was never any terms regarding completion and we have done further business with him. As part of the photography package we were able to have a newborn shoot. So we took this up a couple of years ago, spending further money on prints of our first born. Additionally bought some wildlife shots from him the year after and never once did he indicate we needed to get a move on in fact was very relaxed about the whole thing.

When we booked him he joked about the fact some couples took years to complete as there were so many pictures, and that he used to bet with them they couldn't do it within a set time period so he never indicated time was a problem.

I don't want to fall out with the photographer or create a fuss as ultimately I just want my pictures and be done with it, I just wanted to understand where I stood from a consumer point of view so I could at least have a discussion with the photographer about this fee.

bells_on_it

unholyangel wrote: »

As I have said from the beginning. It will depend what the agreement actually was - and if he has put a period for performance as part of the contract. He cannot retrospectively change the terms or add new ones - especially on price.

I'm almost certain there was nothing in the contract regarding this and he was always very relaxed about timings, he joked about it.

Really appreciate your responses as they're giving me something to think about

bells_on_it

Just responding to another part. Looking through my email trail, I've been chasing rather a lot over the years. They took a while to do the first amends, then the bridesmaid dresses colours weren't showing correctly so I dropped up fabric swatches which I gave to the photographers wife and it took me over 3 months for them to even confirm they had them.
Between June 2013 and February 2014 I sent them 10 emails (plus phone calls) chasing amends to the album, amends they'd never completed. None of these emails were being responded to. At one point had a response saying sorry for the delay but the girl who produced them had been living away with her boyfriend.

I've sent them countless emails over the last few years to which I have the trail so I have been trying to get the album completed and haven't left it until now to do. They have never chased me, it's all been one sided.


Email I sent them in February 2014 to which I finally had a response. They sent the proof. Never queries timings or anything.
HI John / Lauren
I'm getting a little worried, I've been emailing and calling regarding our album since April last year, and recently I've not been getting any responses. I paid over £800 for the album and am worried that I wont get it?
Can you let me know whether there are any problems and whether the amends sent back in April will be made (they're on this email)? Also I would really like the fabric samples back I dropped in last June, can you let me know whether you still have them?
Sorry to chase, but I'm just not getting any responses.
Kind regards
Helen

pinkshoes

Have you asked him specifically what the £50 is for?

What does yourncontract that you signed say?

If the contract doesn't mention increases forntime delays, then decline.

daytona0

unholyangel wrote: »

Didnt mean anyone was having a go sorry Just meant that I'm surprised so many people have decided the OP is solely to blame here purely because OP said they did cause some of the delays.

And its puzzling, because the law favours consumers. Yet the replies on this thread tonight seem to reverse that and treat the business as the protected party and the OP as the one who should be savvy in all things contract.

Cheers for the input!

Yea, the problem is that if you admit partial fault then you leave yourself open to scrutiny. Nobody has been so bold as to say that OP was 100% in the wrong, so a fair minded approach has been adopted!

Yes, it sometimes does. There is nothing worse than a retailer (however big or small, but small more so) being unfairly penalised because a consumer abuses their power. Not to imply anything about OP! I was just curious as to whether OP had breached the contract (making things inconvenient and more costly for seller) and whether this was sufficient reason to charge more.

All in all, though, the seller DOES have a right to ASK for more money (just like I have the right to ask you for 50 pounds) but maybe not legally.