A

This is pretty insulting and baseless, and I'm kinda shocked to see so many similar voices in this thread. In my opinion, the OP did exactly the right thing by negotiating the terms of the contract. The point of a contract is to memorialize the agreement of the parties and to curtail controversies. Advocacy for your own position should be expected--not demonized.

If you want to take the position that your contract is bulletproof and should never be altered, that's fine. But it's absurd to criticize free negotiation as improper or inappropriate. More often than not, the "contracts" alluded to and relied upon by many CC posters are amateurish cut and paste jobs, or barely-sufficient form contracts drafted by a minimum wage undergrad somewhere. The fact that everyone is using them, or that customers are unwittingly signing them, doesn't make them good contracts--and it certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be open to negotiation.

The original clause quoted by the OP is not a neutrally fair clause for the consumer. Seeking indemnity for your own negligence is a huge ask, and the consumer really needs to be getting something in return. In virtually any serious business negotiation, the indemnitor is going to seek that return benefit, or suggest limiting the indemnity (as was the case here). Also, as Jason correctly points out, many states will void broad and intermediate form indemnity clauses in some types of transactions.

AYou should not make that change. It does change the entire tone and meaning of the contract AND more importantly, in a civil suit he does not have to prove you were negligent necessarily, but you will be the one wo has to prove you were not. That can be, at the least, very expensive, and ruin your business just defending a lawsuit like that, because in the food business you are only remembered for your last mistake.

This is not worth the risk for 400.00 which, in my opinion, does not even pay for your time and supplies etc.

When an attorney plays attorney in his social life he needs something to remind him that someone else wrote that contract and that clause was nt in there for a very very good reason.

AI should have added that there is a reason he is asking you to make this cake on such short notice: because anyone he has approached is also not willing to risk their business for him over a cake that does not even meet minimum orders for any kind of wedding or similar style cake.

Also, not only would your premium go up but they could cancel your policy and you might not be able to secure a decent policy without going through a high risk pool.

I would send and email and then a certified mail notice to the venue that you will not be taking him as a client and they need to secure another baker. He should have had the venue provide the cake, but it sounds like he thought it might be "cost effective" to seek a baker outside the venue's standard package.

It all sounds a little fishy to me.

A

Also, not only would your premium go up but they could cancel your policy and you might not be able to secure a decent policy without going through a high risk pool.

I would send and email and then a certified mail notice to the venue that you will not be taking him as a client and they need to secure another baker. He should have had the venue provide the cake, but it sounds like he thought it might be "cost effective" to seek a baker outside the venue's standard package.

A

Generally speaking, that is not true.

A5 weeks not short notice for a Wedding cake and on new years eve yeah right that's not short notice yeah right

I don't think I've ever seen a thread so full of gross active assumptions and gross active speculation!

Hell, I probably would have said something like "Oh would you mind telling me what I should say, does everything else look sound?" You know, take advantage of having a lawyer for a client, and get some free legal advice....that's just me though. I have one across the street I yap with every once in a while. 

"Jason. I find the fact that you need to double check what I'm saying to discredit me, unusual" 

 Let me choose different words: I find your need to spend time looking up what I've said to double check my facts, bizarre behavior! I can understand looking something up to help someone else........that's generous. But it seems very mean spirited to spend time looking up a topic when your only motive is to discredit someone else.

Are you the fact police.........or just looking to assert your superior intelligence?

A

Jenmat, I'm happy to hear that you were able to resolve your concerns with this client.  I agree, the calculator comment was impolite and would set you off with a bad feeling towards anything else he says.  

All of the disparaging comments against lawyers are really unfair.  I know many lawyers and I worked at a large law firm while I was in college and for a few years afterward.  Like any profession (bakers included), some are wonderful people and some are greedy and out for only themselves.  The generalization of lawyers being dishonest and selfish is just not true.  Thanks, Jenmat (and others) for saying so as well.  Doing business with a lawyer does not mean you are asking for trouble.  None of us should sign a contract if we don't agree with the terms.  I've made changes to contracts I felt unfair and, had the other party not agreed with my changes, I would agree that we shouldn't do business (no hard feelings, just business).    

While I truly respect and appreciate Doug's business knowledge, I would not copy a contract directly from him (or anyone else).  The laws in your state could be very different and his contract may not protect you as it should.  I strongly recommend that you hire an attorney familiar with the laws in your state to review your contract or draft a new one.  A contract is not worth anything if it is not legally valid in your state.  Jenmat, it sounds as if you actually received a bonus by working with this groom/attorney - you were able to have your contract reviewed.  Though, he was reviewing it for the customer's side of things, so I would still recommend having an attorney review it with your interests in mind.

JasonKraft is right.  We are all hiding behind our "Contracts" but if there is something seriously wrong with the cake, nails, pins etc...  then you will get sued, contract or not.  My friend is a lawyer, and he said you can sue anyone if you can prove that their product was faulty.

So go with your gut, don't do things you are uncomfortable with.  But it all comes down to your product and if it is faulty and he can prove it.   Use only the freshest ingredients don't add any odd or unusual ingredients and you will be fine.  He is just being an ass.  He was taught to always read the fine print and make up crap by reading between the lines.  LOL  

Good luck he's a tough customer.   Maybe he has a poor sense of humor too.

Take Care

Always trust your gut.  I would tell him either he can sign the contract AS IS, or he doesn't need to get a cake from you.  I feel like it's pretty jerk-y that he walks into YOUR business and feels the need to change YOUR paperwork.  Ummmmmmmmmm NO!  He can find another baker to harass.

Also, let's say you decide to change the contract.  Where do the demands stop?  He seems like a pain in the neck to work with.  Heck no, $400 isn't nearly enough to make me work with someone like that!

A

Contracts are not set in stone, they are living documents that should be revisited regularly to make sure they still make sense based on the scope of your business.

Also, let's say you decide to change the contract.  Where do the demands stop?

I know this is irrelevant but the guys a lawyer and hes ordering a cake costing only 400$ how tight lol. He seems like he's setting you up for trouble it's not worth 'potentially' getting yourself in to a whole lot of financial loss over one order, If I were you I would wiggle my way out of providing any services to him.

A

A

Imagine you hire a caterer to provide food for an event, and they have a similar clause in their contract. Some of the caterer's ingredients have spoiled. The caterer notices the spoilage but uses the ingredients anyway to save money, and several guests get sick, with some requiring hospitalization. If your state does not limit indemnity, the caterer would not legally be required to provide any form of compensation, even though it was 100% their fault, and they were aware of the problem before they served the food.

Does that make sense to you?

There is nothing wrong with a debate - state reasons for you agreeing or disagreeing with someone's statement but be nice.  Comments calling members "stupid" or "rude" or whatever will be deleted.  If you are offended by a comment, skip the thread and move on.

A

And yes, it makes sense to me.

And I will repeat what I said before...

Also, I will and have edited comments.  Please don't make me do that.  Some of you have pretty great info and are entitled to your opinions - I really don't have the time to red pen out the stuff that doesn't fit with being nice in expressing them. 

In the past Mods just delete threads that are to much of a headache to moderate - since I'm new I'm giving it a real go here out of love for you all so again, please be nice!

A

My example corresponds to the original wording in the contract and illustrates why the original clause is not fair to the customer, thus a customer requesting a change to more fair wording should not be an issue.

It was my comment you edited.

I never called anyone stupid. I would never do that on a forum - I don't know anyone here personally so I have no idea if they're stupid or not

I said that it was a stupid thing to write. Two completely different animals!