The best lawsuit ever?

[Garbz]

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/...e-creation-of-wedding-after-divorce.html?_r=1

We've all heard of bridezillas, but how about this lawsuit here, brought after the wedding, a long time after the wedding, ... actually after the divorce too.

 

[jwbryson1]

Attorneys like this give people like me a bad name.

 

[shootermcgavin]

This is exactly why I would never consider shooting weddings. Now I went from 1 reason to 2, bridezilla and groomzilla.. If you shoot weddings you have my respect no matter how the pictures end up. I don't even like weddings I feel like if for some reason I trip and end up in the cake I'm going to be on youtube the next day on the front page.

 

[Kerbouchard]

This has been posted a few times and there are quite a few articles on it. Basically, it looks like a case of breach of contract. Looks like the photogrpaher does NOT have images from the last part of the wedding and many of the ones they do have are questionable as to lighting and quality. Sucks to be them. From what it is being reported, the photographer has already spent more in legal fees than what was being asked for by the plantiff.

A lesson to be learned for every 'new' wedding photographer on this forum. At least once a week we get a post on here about a photographer who has just purchased their first DSLR and is looking to shoot their first wedding. It usually gets locked right away, but perhaps the mod's should start posting links like these before they lock them.

Turns out, doing a crappy job, or missing shots that bride or groom deem critical can bankrupt you.

Not sure why that continues to surprise some people on this forum.

 

[gsgary]

Lawyers that take on job like that are scum of the earth well to me most are after the trouble i had trying to see my kids, took a solicitor 1 year to sort it out then 4 years later my ex stopped me seeing the kids again, i went to court on my own and it only took me 3 weeks to get it sorted , and that Todd Remis is one sad bastard

 

[480sparky]

I would like nothing more than to just be able to read the entire contract. If they've been in business that long, surely they would have some protection against this.

 

[shootermcgavin]

I would like nothing more than to just be able to read the entire contract. If they've been in business that long, surely they would have some protection against this.

A contract does not keep you from getting sued, it also doesn't necessarily protect you as a judge can find a way to over rule it if you rub them the wrong way. I recently had a disgruntled customer who no matter what I did or tried to explain was not happy and thought what I was doing was illegal under laws they made up. He took my contract and cut out words so it read what he wanted. After 2 weeks of getting no where they finally had their lawyer sent a letter threatening a law suit. I told the lawyer straight up that what was being asked was ridiculous and that not only will I not fight the suit I will not spend one more minute wasting my time on it because I will close the company and start another one up the next day. After that the customer called back being reasonable but at that point I was already done with him and told him any complaints he needs to take it up with the manufacturer as it states in the contract. Lawyers are like pigeons if you feed them they'll stay around forever but if you ignore them they'll fly away. That's why starting an LLC is a great protective investment. I actually live by the rule of 250 from a book by Joe Girard. I do my best to make sure no customer is unhappy even if it means breaking even or losing a little money, this was the first time I ever broke my rule.

 

[gsgary]

You forgot to mention that they stay around and **** on you

 

[480sparky]

I would like nothing more than to just be able to read the entire contract. If they've been in business that long, surely they would have some protection against this.

A contract does not keep you from getting sued, it also doesn't necessarily protect you as a judge can find a way to over rule it if you rub them the wrong way..............

I never said that. But a well-worded contract can easily make things like this go away quickly.

If contracts are so absolutely worthless, we're all a bunch of idiots for still using them.

 

[Compaq]

surely they would have some protection against this.

Maybe not..... and don't call me Shirley!


(sorry I had to)

 

[Kerbouchard]

I would like nothing more than to just be able to read the entire contract. If they've been in business that long, surely they would have some protection against this.

A contract does not keep you from getting sued, it also doesn't necessarily protect you as a judge can find a way to over rule it if you rub them the wrong way..............

I never said that. But a well-worded contract can easily make things like this go away quickly.

If contracts are so absolutely worthless, we're all a bunch of idiots for still using them.

I don't believe anybody thinks that contracts are worthless, but then again, they aren't the be all end all, either.

For one thing, the client is suing for breach of contract...as in, the photographer contracted to shoot the entire wedding and missed the last part of it.

Second, unless your contract includes an aribitration clause that spells out what occurs in the event of a dispute, the contract and it's validity is still going to be decided by a judge and it is going to cost you money and time to defend yourself.

 

[Alpha]

Contracts are not worthless, but even when they're well-worded they are typically still subject to interpretation. So long as there are substantial issues to be interpreted, a suit can proceed (with a number of caveats). For example, if a contract says the photographer will make a good faith effort to cover every significant aspect of the wedding, and then they miss something the bride/groom feel was important, it is still subject to interpretation whether the photographer made a good faith effort, and what it means for something to be a significant aspect of the wedding.

I would like nothing more than to just be able to read the entire contract. If they've been in business that long, surely they would have some protection against this.

A contract does not keep you from getting sued, it also doesn't necessarily protect you as a judge can find a way to over rule it if you rub them the wrong way..............

I never said that. But a well-worded contract can easily make things like this go away quickly.

If contracts are so absolutely worthless, we're all a bunch of idiots for still using them.

 

[Netskimmer]

That judge should be flogged for letting this go to court. It's bs and judging from the article, she knew it was bs but let it go though (seemingly out of self-amusement). Now the photogs have to shell out $50,000+ just to defend themselves in a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Garbz]

That judge should be flogged for letting this go to court.

That's not how it works. Everything should be able to go to court, but unless either party has requested a summary judgement the judge will hear out the case in full.

Also it's not as trivial case. If the contract signed mentioned the specific duration of the wedding (using words such as wedding in its entireity) or mentioned specific images that will be taken which weren't then you have not met the performance specified in the contract. Under contract law that usually means the other party is not required to meet the performance either (read this as getting paid compensation if the contract is already completed, or getting out of some of the outstanding contractual obligations).

Basically many contract cases sound absurd on the face of it but are quite legitimate. Though the groom probably has buckleys chance of getting a reshoot.

 

[MLeeK]

Honestly? As a wedding photographer that is flucking scary.
"Although Justice Doris Ling-Cohan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan dismissed most of the grounds for the lawsuit, like the “infliction of emotional distress,” she has allowed the case to proceed to determine whether there was indeed a breach of contract"

THE JUDGE ALLOWED THE CASE TO PROCEED!!! Do you realize how many 15 minute intervals are missed in EVERY wedding? I know I can't shoot the groomsmen at the same time I am shooting the bridesmaids if I am shooting alone. And if I am shooting with a partner one of us may be shooting the bridesmaids/bride and one may be shooting groomsmen/groom but we are still missing the family filing in to the church. That opens EVERY wedding up for a lawsuit.

We already live in a sue happy country where everyone can sue for anything, lets make it worse. At some point the legal jargon is going to be so prohibitive that no one is going to want to photograph anything (except the newbies who don't know better.)

I SERIOUSLY doubt that the contract for that wedding itemized what shots would be provided. Weddings are an extreme sport. If you only miss ONE shot during all of the day you are doing damn great, but if this is any indication? That's enough for a lawsuit of mammoth proportions.