Stop payment for services rendered

[uio_]

I am the co-owner of a travel agency outside of the US that have a client from California. After having received our payment terms and agreements, the client sent a check for full payment by registered mail for travel services. The client experienced travel problems and never arrived to use the services arranged. As indicated in the payment terms and agreements, cancelation less than 30 days does not entitle the client to any refund. The client subsequently stopped payment on the check.

I have the following questions:

1. Does sending full payment constitute agreement and acknowledgement by the client of our payment terms and agreements?
2. Is the client obligated to abide by our terms and agreements, even though the clients excuse is that they never used our services?
3. Can a foreign individual and/or business file a claim in California?
4. Suggested course of action?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

I am the co-owner of a travel agency outside of the US that have a client from California. After having received our payment terms and agreements, the client sent a check for full payment by registered mail for travel services. The client experienced travel problems and never arrived to use the services arranged. As indicated in the payment terms and agreements, cancelation less than 30 days does not entitle the client to any refund. The client subsequently stopped payment on the check.

I have the following questions:

1. Does sending full payment constitute agreement and acknowledgement by the client of our payment terms and agreements?
2. Is the client obligated to abide by our terms and agreements, even though the clients excuse is that they never used our services?
3. Can a foreign individual and/or business file a claim in California?
4. Suggested course of action?

1. What exactly is the reason the client had problems? Was it unrelated to your services? If you didn't provide the services, then you would be in breach and not entitled to the money. I'm guessing it's the former.
2. An agreement is an agreement. The essential terms should be in there. If you provided services properly then the client is responsible to pay for them.
3. Yes, foreign companies can sue but make sure to comply with procedure and court requirements (there are different courts.)
4. Impossible to say. I don't know the whole story, don't have the agreement, don't know the amount and the cost to sue. Chances are that a poorly drafted document would make suit too costly to be worth the while. Of course, I would have made sure that any contract I drafted for you would anticipate this situation. For example, I might have made the individual subject to be sued in YOUR country too - it is called a "choice of forum" clause.

If you tell us more perhaps we can continue the conversation. Otherwise, best of luck!

 

[uio_]

Information continued

1. What exactly is the reason the client had problems? Was it unrelated to your services? If you didn't provide the services, then you would be in breach and not entitled to the money. I'm guessing it's the former.
2. An agreement is an agreement. The essential terms should be in there. If you provided services properly then the client is responsible to pay for them.
3. Yes, foreign companies can sue but make sure to comply with procedure and court requirements (there are different courts.)
4. Impossible to say. I don't know the whole story, don't have the agreement, don't know the amount and the cost to sue. Chances are that a poorly drafted document would make suit too costly to be worth the while. Of course, I would have made sure that any contract I drafted for you would anticipate this situation. For example, I might have made the individual subject to be sued in YOUR country too - it is called a "choice of forum" clause.

If you tell us more perhaps we can continue the conversation. Otherwise, best of luck!

1. The client had a travel problem (with airline reservations) completely unrelated to our services.
2. All services were provided properly.
3. Which court aplies in this case? Small Claims?
4. The total amount is less than $5000. The pertinent section of the payment agreement states "CANCELLATION OF RESERVATION - If reservation is cancelled 59 days or less prior to your arrival, full payment is forfeited. Cancellation or loss of flight - No refunds.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

1. The client had a travel problem (with airline reservations) completely unrelated to our services.
2. All services were provided properly.
3. Which court aplies in this case? Small Claims?
4. The total amount is less than $5000. The pertinent section of the payment agreement states "CANCELLATION OF RESERVATION - If reservation is cancelled 59 days or less prior to your arrival, full payment is forfeited. Cancellation or loss of flight - No refunds.

Small claims would be the right place.I don't know the specifics about what the fee breakdown is how using your service could cost so much. Did you "front" money for travel/trip and find out later that the customer never took the flight? If you can give me details I can answer more completely.

 

[uio_]

details continued ...

Small claims would be the right place.I don't know the specifics about what the fee breakdown is how using your service could cost so much. Did you "front" money for travel/trip and find out later that the customer never took the flight? If you can give me details I can answer more completely.

As the check in question was rececived the day services commenced, we had to "front" the respective costs so that the client could realize and enjoy the travel arrangements requested.

 

[Michael Wechsler]

As the check in question was rececived the day services commenced, we had to "front" the respective costs so that the client could realize and enjoy the travel arrangements requested.

This explains why the client felt they could blow off the trip since, after all, you paid for it.

So what is the excuse the client is giving you as to their justification for canceling the check? Unless there is something really good, I wouldn't want to walk into court as a defendant. I would also ask for punitive damages (can't usually get them) but do be creative with your damages such as costs to you for coming to court, putting everything together, etc. You should make an argument to the judge that unlike a regular dispute, the defendant has absolutely NO reasonable dispute. There is no "disagreement" about the terms. The defendant just wanted to make it difficult for you to collect by forcing you to spend much time and effort to recover the money. If so, every defendant will act the same way and that the only way to ensure that people abide by the law is to also make them pay -- when they have no reasonable dispute -- for all the expenses incurred in terms of time and labor. It might work. Good luck to you and let us know how you fare.

 

[uio_]

excuses

This explains why the client felt they could blow off the trip since, after all, you paid for it.

So what is the excuse the client is giving you as to their justification for canceling the check? Unless there is something really good, I wouldn't want to walk into court as a defendant. I would also ask for punitive damages (can't usually get them) but do be creative with your damages such as costs to you for coming to court, putting everything together, etc. You should make an argument to the judge that unlike a regular dispute, the defendant has absolutely NO reasonable dispute. There is no "disagreement" about the terms. The defendant just wanted to make it difficult for you to collect by forcing you to spend much time and effort to recover the money. If so, every defendant will act the same way and that the only way to ensure that people abide by the law is to also make them pay -- when they have no reasonable dispute -- for all the expenses incurred in terms of time and labor. It might work. Good luck to you and let us know how you fare.

The excuse is "We had a change of plan in our traveling route that was beyond our control and so we had to stop the check for the obvious reason that we were not gonna use your services, facility, or amenities. For if we have not come there to use any of your equipment, servives, or amenities we ARE NOT responsible for any payments. It is that simple! (section 35.99 of contract and trade agreements of American policies). Whatever the rules of your country's trade and contract are, are honored when someone steps foot into the country, we never did and therefore you HAVE to abide by the US rules, which clearly states that if no service was rendered and no paper physically was signed by both parties in presence of each other no trade had taken place and therefore no money owed.2

 

[Michael Wechsler]

The excuse is "We had a change of plan in our traveling route that was beyond our control and so we had to stop the check for the obvious reason that we were not gonna use your services, facility, or amenities. For if we have not come there to use any of your equipment, servives, or amenities we ARE NOT responsible for any payments. It is that simple! (section 35.99 of contract and trade agreements of American policies). Whatever the rules of your country's trade and contract are, are honored when someone steps foot into the country, we never did and therefore you HAVE to abide by the US rules, which clearly states that if no service was rendered and no paper physically was signed by both parties in presence of each other no trade had taken place and therefore no money owed.2

Given the grammar and structure of the reply, it sounds like they have no excuse and this person has no clue what they are talking about. None of it makes sense, US or non-US law. I'd use the reply to ask for damages as the breach was deliberate and intended to cause you damages.