Contract Term queried.

[Ryu]

Hey,

Advice please!

I've had a customer query one of the standard terms in my contract with the following message...

Many thanks for your terms.


We have a concern in the terms - 4.2 and 4.3 - over the loss/damage of the equipment. We feel that in the unlikely event that if equipment is left unattended and unsecured and someone were to steal it, we don't think that we should be held liable to reimburse you. We would ask that in this instance you would liaise with the police/hotel directly.


Can we agree on this change to the terms, and if so how do you think we should handle such a change?


My T's and C's 4.2 and 4.3 are worded accordingly...

4.2 Responsibility for Guests
The Customer is responsible for the behavior of his / her guests. The Supplier or Disc Jockey will not tolerate anti-social behavior by the Customer, guests or other staff at the venue. Threatening or aggressive language and behavior will not be tolerated and the Disc Jockey reserves the right to cease performing if the situation is deemed to be unacceptable working conditions. The client shall be responsible for the behavior of guests. In particular it should be ensured that all children are supervised. Guests should not interfere with the equipment and equipment should be safeguarded against theft, damage or other risks, from the moment of arrival at the venue to the moment of final departure. Please note any loss of or damage to equipment, other than that caused by fair wear and tear, will be charged for.
4.3 Responsibility for Equipment
If the Customer requests an early set up, necessitating that equipment be left unattended for any period, the Customer shall be responsible for the same as per the preceding paragraph.

Whats your advice? Stick to my guns, drop the term, re-word??

Thanks

[Shaun]

It seems pretty standard to me. Definitely stick to your guns. I'd rather pass up on a gig than have a client dictate the terms of my T&C's.

[Ryu]

It seems pretty standard to me. Definitely stick to your guns. I'd rather pass up on a gig than have a client dictate the terms of my T&C's.

Thanks Shaun.

Is it not a case of things being lost in translation (between the Term and my customer) though? This is an all day booking, I'll be on site....is there no way of explaining this term so that its intention is more clearly understood?

[Shaun]

Not sure what could be lost in translation though. It seems pretty straight forward terminology.

If it were me me I'd probably send a reply thanking her for her email but stating that the contract terms are unfortunately non-negotiable. You could mention what you have just mentioned to me. That as it's an all day booking you will be on-site all day and the likelihood of there being an issue is very very slim. If it were me though, I'd stick tight to my terms. She either agrees or she finds someone else. I'm a right stubborn old dog though.

Maybe she has reservations about the guests she's invited, and worries that some of them might make off with your gear..lol?

[dehayco]

4.3 i may be tempted to remove as you will be on site all day however 4.2 i would defiantly stick to my guns.

[musicologydisco]

If you're going to be there then 4.3 could easily be removed.

[Ryu]

Thanks for the help gentlemen. Dropped the 4.3 and explained the 4.2 in more detail, will see what the response is like.

[katman]

4.3 i may be tempted to remove as you will be on site all day however 4.2 i would defiantly stick to my guns.

Playing devils advocate here......

whilst you may be "on site" all day would you be in the function room all day ?

Unless you are going to remain WITH the gear all day looking like the proverbial spare part then there will be times when the gear is unattended espcecially if you are sitting in another room reading a newspaper or book etc.

[Ryu]

Playing devils advocate here......

whilst you may be "on site" all day would you be in the function room all day ?

Unless you are going to remain WITH the gear all day looking like the proverbial spare part then there will be times when the gear is unattended espcecially if you are sitting in another room reading a newspaper or book etc.

It is indeed a fair point. In the building but likely in adjacent rooms.


So...whilst I wait on a response, flipping it the other way....does the customer have a point? Is the clause a bit heavy handed? Wouldn't the customer have likely agreed to a similar term with the hotel (guest damages to furnishings for example)

[DazzyD]

4.2 Responsibility for Guests
The Customer is responsible for the behavior of his / her guests. The Supplier or Disc Jockey will not tolerate anti-social behavior by the Customer, guests or other staff at the venue. Threatening or aggressive language and behavior will not be tolerated and the Disc Jockey reserves the right to cease performing if the situation is deemed to be unacceptable working conditions. The client shall be responsible for the behavior of guests. In particular it should be ensured that all children are supervised. Guests should not interfere with the equipment and equipment should be safeguarded against theft, damage or other risks, from the moment of arrival at the venue to the moment of final departure. Please note any loss of or damage to equipment, other than that caused by fair wear and tear, will be charged for.

4.3 Responsibility for Equipment
If the Customer requests an early set up, necessitating that equipment be left unattended for any period, the Customer shall be responsible for the same as per the preceding paragraph.

I'm not too sure how you can make the client liable for the behaviour of staff at the venue. I think this responsibility lies solely with the venue management.

As for para 4.3, I'd be inclined to see where the client is coming from. I can see how you can hold the client liable for repair/replacement/compensation for damage caused by the negligence of themselves or their guests, but I'm not sure how you'd enforce this if something was stolen by an opportunist thief who is not a guest of the client or something is damaged by a staff member or someone else working at the venue (another service provider, perhaps). For example, what if there's a fault with the venue's fire sprinkler system and it goes off by mistake causing damage to your equipment? Surely, you couldn't hold the client responsible for this but this is what your T&Cs are saying (with the wording "theft, damage or other risks").

I'm not saying that your T&Cs are wrong or anything. I'm just trying to see things from the client's point of view. People tend to view contracts with suspicion and think they're just a way for you to "get" them. How many times have you heard someone say they're signing their lives away when signing a contract?

Because of my belief that a contract should be two-sided (ie mutually beneficially to me and the client) , this is the way I've drawn up the T&Cs that we use and we've never had a problem with them. But, if a client did have concerns over a particular condition, I'd first make it clear why that condition is there and, if the client doesn't accept this then I'd consider seeing if we can find some compromise to secure the gig. However, there are some terms that I simply wouldn't budge on and, if these ever became an issue with the client, then I'd have to walk away from the gig. It's as simple as that.

[Ryu]

I'm not too sure how you can make the client liable for the behaviour of staff at the venue. I think this responsibility lies solely with the venue management.

As for para 4.3, I'd be inclined to see where the client is coming from. I can see how you can hold the client liable for repair/replacement/compensation for damage caused by the negligence of themselves or their guests, but I'm not sure how you'd enforce this if something was stolen by an opportunist thief who is not a guest of the client or something is damaged by a staff member or someone else working at the venue (another service provider, perhaps). For example, what if there's a fault with the venue's fire sprinkler system and it goes off by mistake causing damage to your equipment? Surely, you couldn't hold the client responsible for this but this is what your T&Cs are saying (with the wording "theft, damage or other risks").

I'm not saying that your T&Cs are wrong or anything. I'm just trying to see things from the client's point of view. People tend to view contracts with suspicion and think they're just a way for you to "get" them. How many times have you heard someone say they're signing their lives away when signing a contract?i

Because of my belief that a contract should be two-sided (ie mutually beneficially to me and the client) , this is the way I've drawn up the T&Cs that we use and we've never had a problem with them. But, if a client did have concerns over a particular condition, I'd first make it clear why that condition is there and, if the client doesn't accept this then I'd consider seeing if we can find some compromise to secure the gig. However, there are some terms that I simply wouldn't budge on and, if these ever became an issue with the client, then I'd have to walk away from the gig. It's as simple as that.

I totally agree Dazzy, I want a compromise as I hold the same view as you, a contracted agreement should be one both parties are comfortable with. I think your point about opportunist thieves was where they were coming from (although this is reputable venue, and out in the sticks, so the chances are slim)

I wonder if there is more effective wording I can use in the future...

[musicologydisco]

Playing devils advocate here......

whilst you may be "on site" all day would you be in the function room all day ?

Unless you are going to remain WITH the gear all day looking like the proverbial spare part then there will be times when the gear is unattended espcecially if you are sitting in another room reading a newspaper or book etc.

I can't see the client having any responsibility in this scenario. That's down to the owner of the kit and possibly the venue.

[Corabar Entertainment]

...and playing further devil's advocate here...

Say the B&G had hired table centres. Can you see "Oh it wasn't any of my guests who stole the candelabra, it was just an opportunistic thief who came in and took it, so you can't blame or charge us!" carrying any weight with the supplier?

[DazzyD]

...and playing further devil's advocate here...

Say the B&G had hired table centres. Can you see "Oh it wasn't any of my guests who stole the candelabra, it was just an opportunistic thief who came in and took it, so you can't blame or charge us!" carrying any weight with the supplier?

I can see where you're coming from, Angela, but theft, no matter how small, is a serious criminal offence and, therefore, the police should be involved. And I'm sure that UK law still states that you're innocent until proven guilty. This situation would need to be investigated properly. I'm sure I'd not be too happy having to pay for something that neither myself nor my guests, for whom I'm responsible, did. And I definitely refuse to sign any agreement that would be in a position to do otherwise.

[Ryu]

Wouldn't my own insurance also cover theft?

[DazzyD]

Wouldn't my own insurance also cover theft?

Depends on your policy. On my policy, it has be left in a secure room that is locked with an approved lock device and not accessible to the general public. If people are coming and going then the room is not locked and my insurance would probably kick up a fuss about not paying out.

But, all insurance policies are different. Just check yours.

[ukpartydj]

I've been considering a clause as currently I do not mention anything about theft or damage to my equipment other than "if any equipment or persons are in threat of damage or injury, the performance must cease until the Client has resolved the threat".

Mainly because of this slightly unfair clause, although I really should put something in! I guess the easiest way to figure out what the clause should be is to look at tool hire companies, I wonder what they would do if I said the mini digger they hired to me was stolen by someone else...

[DazzyD]

I've been considering a clause as currently I do not mention anything about theft or damage to my equipment other than "if any equipment or persons are in threat of damage or injury, the performance must cease until the Client has resolved the threat".

Mainly because of this slightly unfair clause, although I really should put something in! I guess the easiest way to figure out what the clause should be is to look at tool hire companies, I wonder what they would do if I said the mini digger they hired to me was stolen by someone else...

To be fair, if you've taken all reasonable steps to protect the mini digger, and can show this, then I would say that the hire company would have to pursue it through their own insurance after involving the police. "reasonable steps" is a term often used but it does not cover every possibility. There's always things that can happen beyond this!