In a wedding photography contract, in the state of Tennessee, can the photographer safely consider a contract null and void if there is a payment date specified (i.e. retainer not yet paid) and the client is overdue, if the contract DOES NOT explicitly state the contract is void if the payment date is not met? (though it does say For the service at hand, client agrees to pay $XXX by xx/xx/08 with the reaminder due X days before event.
What about the following extenuating circumstances (assume different contracts)
1.) Contract was never signed, just sent blank with the date filled in, and an email promising to hold the date, requesting signed contract and payment by the date listed - but not clearly specifying the date will not be held if money is not met? (What if it is followed up by an email that DOES state this before the term has expired? After the term has expired?
2.) Signed contract, client allowed 2 extensions and fails to pay, and does not respond to requests to sign cancellation contract?
From what I have gathered from others, the photographer is contractually bound (or at least safer) to provide the service even without payment as a wedding is a timely event and payment is not? If this is the case, if the photographer offers their services for free or a reduced rate, in exchange for some sort of agreement to indemnify and hold harmless? Does such an agreement even exist?
My thoughts are, from least risky to most risky
1.) Convince client to sign cancellation agreement. (Not always easy)
2.) Shoot event anyway, and prepare for the fact that if the money is a problem for the client, they may see a lawsuit/refusal to pay as a valid way to recoup thier expenditure.
3.) Inform client bluntly that their date has been cancelled for non payment whether they like it or not, and pray to the patron Saint of Lawsuits.
It just seems odd to me that a client can simply choose not to pay and still recieve the services, but I am willing to suck it up if it is my own fault for not consulting proper counsel on my contract. What I DON'T like is the idea of shooting for free AND still being exposed to liability for the event.
What about the following extenuating circumstances (assume different contracts)
1.) Contract was never signed, just sent blank with the date filled in, and an email promising to hold the date, requesting signed contract and payment by the date listed - but not clearly specifying the date will not be held if money is not met? (What if it is followed up by an email that DOES state this before the term has expired? After the term has expired?
2.) Signed contract, client allowed 2 extensions and fails to pay, and does not respond to requests to sign cancellation contract?
From what I have gathered from others, the photographer is contractually bound (or at least safer) to provide the service even without payment as a wedding is a timely event and payment is not? If this is the case, if the photographer offers their services for free or a reduced rate, in exchange for some sort of agreement to indemnify and hold harmless? Does such an agreement even exist?
My thoughts are, from least risky to most risky
1.) Convince client to sign cancellation agreement. (Not always easy)
2.) Shoot event anyway, and prepare for the fact that if the money is a problem for the client, they may see a lawsuit/refusal to pay as a valid way to recoup thier expenditure.
3.) Inform client bluntly that their date has been cancelled for non payment whether they like it or not, and pray to the patron Saint of Lawsuits.
It just seems odd to me that a client can simply choose not to pay and still recieve the services, but I am willing to suck it up if it is my own fault for not consulting proper counsel on my contract. What I DON'T like is the idea of shooting for free AND still being exposed to liability for the event.
