Purchaase Orders - are they a valid contract?

Humdinger1

Honey hello - until recently I was an exhibition organiser. Can I suggest that on the front of the contract (above where the client signs) you insert a line to say that the client has read all ts and cs (normally on the back of said contract). That's been on every contract I've ever sent and helps stop this sort of discussion in its tracks. Good luck with all this - the client is trying to wriggle out of it and you have done nothing wrong.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Humdinger1 wrote: »

Honey hello - until recently I was an exhibition organiser. Can I suggest that on the front of the contract (above where the client signs) you insert a line to say that the client has read all ts and cs (normally on the back of said contract). That's been on every contract I've ever sent and helps stop this sort of discussion in its tracks. Good luck with all this - the client is trying to wriggle out of it and you have done nothing wrong.

If her employers don't want her to chase invoices aggressively and she has chased invoices aggressively she has done something wrong. The question is whether somebody told her to do it.

nicechap

HONEYMONSTER wrote: »

Hi!

.... They replied accusing me of harassing them for monies not rightfully due and my recommendation to my boss was to legally pursue the monies. ..........I am going to try and ring a solicitor in the morning but in the meantime does anyone have any idea about the validity of purchase orders and whether my line of thought is correct. Advice please?

HONEYMONSTER wrote: »

Hi!

... Two days before the event he replied basically saying that he was aware their were unscrupulous people out there trying to extract monies thru harassment that they were not entitled to and as such they were not falling for it and were not paying for something they had no intention of using. I was flabberghasted as I was appropriately chasing payment on an order they had clearly placed. In my mind he was simply trying diversion tactics to put me off. At this point the event organiser, who was clearly in my corner discussed it with a senior manager assuming his total support when it all backfired. I have not harassed anyone, am not ashamed or embarrassed by my actions, they are just trying it on and I would call their bluff. I have no qualms about standing my ground with the client or my boss but I would like to know the official position re a purchase order. One response quotes Wiki and I also looked there, the problem with this is that this refers to US law and I am in the UK! I feel I have acted entirely appropriately and within the limits of my authority which includes taking legal action for recovery of outstanding monies due however as a matter of courtesy, I first sought to confirm the importance of the client to us before deciding the way forward. My colleague is distraught that she may have inadvertently got me in hot water and the team fully support my stance. Obviously my boss does not and I want to have an informed discussion with him. Thanks

HONEYMONSTER wrote: »

I have only been there for 6mth and one of my specific remits is debt collecting. I'm not worried by the harassment allegations as I haven't harassed anyone and can prove it as there is a clear paper trail and chasing unpaid bills in a reasonable and justifiable manner is not harassment.

Thanks for your help.

I would expect communicating clearly such as using paragraphs and attention to detail to be important qualities in someone senior managing purchase orders (rather than purchaase orders).

I'm also confused as to why you posted a financial contract legal question on an Employment matters forum?

What did your solicitor advise you having given them all the facts?

I note you have repeatedly used the word harassment/harassing.

Do you realise that the starting point for any harassment allegation is not whether someone intended to harass but whether the other party felt harassed.

steampowered

nicechap wrote: »

Do you realise that the starting point for any harassment allegation is not whether someone intended to harass but whether the other party felt harassed.

The legal definition of harassment, under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997, is as follows:
A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

You will note that the focus is entirely on whether the actions of the person who is doing the harassment are reasonable. How the other person reacts has nothing to do with it.

The only case I can find in which someone was sued under harassment legislation for chasing a debt was the well known case of Ferguson v British Gas, in which British Gas issued literally hundreds of threatening letters (despite admitting that the debt was not due) for about a year. The Op is some way off that.

If sending a couple of emails about an unpaid debt could be harassment the directors of almost every business would be in jail. Certainly solicitors would be out of a job since they couldn't write letters before action anymore without people claiming they had been harassed.

nicechap

Thank you steampowered for the info. I don't think anyone is suggestiong the OP is punished in a criminal court.


Where I work and my previous employer, the starting point was always whether the reporting party felt there was harassment (sometimes it was a 3rd party to the event that reported things) - partly this is to encourage women and BME to come forward more often and not suffer in silence. If a full investigation found the allegations baseless or malicious that would be one thing, but invariably there were lessons to be learned or disciplinary action to take against the instigator of the harrassment.


In the OP's case, he repeatedly states the client uses the terms harassment or harassing. It'll be up to his bosses to decide if the allegations are baseless or require action.

HONEYMONSTER

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

If her employers don't want her to chase invoices aggressively and she has chased invoices aggressively she has done something wrong. The question is whether somebody told her to do it.

No one told me to do it and I haven't - perfectly nice civil emails even telling them we were looking forward to seeing them at the event - the guys just sending up a diversionary smoke screen to avoid payment. Why are you fixating on this it's not the issue! I explained his allegation so you understood the situation, I am not asking for advice on this. Why are you assuming the worse!

xapprenticex

You are new to posting in this side of the forum, you'll get used to it. Take it in your stride.

When is the meeting? If i were you id leave this thread as its no longer helpful and if you feel we are worth updating after the meeting then do so :money:

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

HONEYMONSTER wrote: »

No one told me to do it and I haven't - perfectly nice civil emails even telling them we were looking forward to seeing them at the event - the guys just sending up a diversionary smoke screen to avoid payment. Why are you fixating on this it's not the issue! I explained his allegation so you understood the situation, I am not asking for advice on this. Why are you assuming the worse!

Because you don't seem to get that whether you have a legal right to chase them is immaterial.

Your employers will either approve of what you did do, or they won't. I don't see why you think that opinion of theirs will be altered in any way by the potential legal outcome were you to sue the customer. It's utterly irrelevant to the disciplinary action you feel you may be facing. So yes, you have asked a question, but what you need to be told is you are asking the wrong question. There's no way in which the legal position of a purchase order can possibly be a defence for you - if you eventually need a defence.

HONEYMONSTER

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

Because you don't seem to get that whether you have a legal right to chase them is immaterial.

Your employers will either approve of what you did do, or they won't. I don't see why you think that opinion of theirs will be altered in any way by the potential legal outcome were you to sue the customer. It's utterly irrelevant to the disciplinary action you feel you may be facing. So yes, you have asked a question, but what you need to be told is you are asking the wrong question. There's no way in which the legal position of a purchase order can possibly be a defence for you - if you eventually need a defence.

OK...one last comment and then that's it. I am not asking the wrong question, I already know the rest of it, I m not naïve and I totally understand why my employer wants to discuss it as in essence a complaint has been made about me - I am not afraid of this and I am totally aware of the potential consequences. You have falsely assumed I do not!

I simply wanted to know as part of a learning curve if my understanding of a purchase order was correct for future reference and also for helping me to put forward a case for the way forward with this should it still fall within my remit. If the purchase order is not enforceable then there is no where to go with it and I need to re-address my thinking!

MoneySavingNovice

Hi Honeymonster,

Basically if there is Offer, Acceptance, Consideration and the Intent to form legal relations then yes a contract exists.

Based upon the information you have supplied here then in my view it appears that a contract has been formed.

More information can be found within this simple guide:-
http://www.a4id.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/A4ID-english-contract-law-at-a-glance.pdf

Good Luck