Issue with Venture Photography - contract rights regarding a couple who have split

uncoordinated

Hello,

Posting on behalf of a family member (brother in law)

He has recently (as in yesterday) split up with his partner, who turned out to be a very nasty individual, using him for money etc etc, and one of the things that my wife and I are trying to help him with is as follows.

Basically, his ex-partner and him (stupidly) got duped into (approx 30 days ago) signing a deal for over £2000 for six photographs at Venture, working out at £80 a month.

However, looking through the details, the cancellation seems to be 14 days. Fine. Can't argue with that, it's their fault.

BUT - the contract is in the ex partners address, and signed by her ONLY.

However, the direct debit is from the brother in law's account. (obviously )

Question is this - where do we stand in just cancelling the direct debit from the brother in laws account. Is it the ex partners perogative to provide the funds, as its all in her name? Or is he going to get in trouble if he simply cancels it to let her deal with it.

Literally zero sentiment involved with this, just need to get as much of this nonsense away from the brother in law as possible.

Thanks!

pinkshoes

If he stops paying the DD, then I assume they will then go after her if the contract is in her name.

Who are the photos of? She could take him to court for his half...

uncoordinated

Photos are of her and her baby, of which he has no legal bond (although an emotional bond over the last few months, poor guys in bits) but she's really screwed him over

They were not married.

Haven't received the product yet, its still 'in printing'.

Autumnella

Personally I would just cancel the direct debit and let her deal with paying it, especially if I wasn't even in any of the pictures.

bris

Technically he is party to the contract by his actions. There is no doubt he is party to the contract because he went and agreed with it whether he signed any thing or not, his actions by paying for it by using his bank just back this up.


They are jointly liable, you can stop the DD and they will chase her initially for the outstanding balance, she will then need to treat the X as a civil matter the small claims court would decide on.


The company could sue both if it doesn't get paid but I suspect it would be easier for them to just sue the one who signed.

paddyrg

The intent was to be jointly liable, even if circumstances have changed. Photographers provided their (somewhat expensive) service, so need paying of course. They tend to retain debt collectors for buyers remorse, but are more likely to chase the contracted party. He could close the account and go off grid and only deal with it if they catch up with him and can't get the cash from the ex.

Marktheshark

Has the service been used ?
How was the order placed ? Online or in a shop

agrinnall

Unless the photographer is someone of the calibre of Annie Liebowitz I'd plead inability to enter into a contract through mental incompetence, because £2000 for 6 pictures is an insane price!

unholyangel

You say the contract is signed only by her, but does it name him as party to the contract anywhere?

If he's not named on the contract at all then the company can't chase him - even if the payment details were his. Paying something on behalf of someone does not make you party to that contract.

However as pointed out, there is a remote possibility of her taking action against him in small claims - however I don't think it would be enforceable. It sounds more like a gift on his part and gifts are not enforceable in law. Unless she can show they had a "contract" between them (ie that they had both agreed to suffer a detriment in exchange for a benefit), then she'd have no case against him.

That is basically the consideration each party to a contract must give. Promises of love & affection are not valid consideration, consideration must not be past (ie something thats already happened) and it needs to be something of value.

shaun_from_Africa

bris wrote: »

Technically he is party to the contract by his actions. There is no doubt he is party to the contract because he went and agreed with it whether he signed any thing or not, his actions by paying for it by using his bank just back this up.

Simply paying for something doesn't automatically mean that you are involved in a contract.
If I was to give money to someone and they then used that money to purchase goods, the contract of sale is between the seller and the person who made the purchase.
Just because I supplied the money doesn't give me any rights against the seller should the goods become faulty.

bris

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Simply paying for something doesn't automatically mean that you are involved in a contract.
If I was to give money to someone and they then used that money to purchase goods, the contract of sale is between the seller and the person who made the purchase.
Just because I supplied the money doesn't give me any rights against the seller should the goods become faulty.

His actions by paying are clear intent to be party to the contract and gifts are enforceable in law. Once you give a gift it can not be taken back, this is basic understanding.