Compensation Claim against me

Exactly So-Crates, I, with my untutored eye, thought that too, that the Contract had been fiddled about with by the Agent. Performance obligation should surely be placed onto the band, which is does not appear to be. Also, in Clause 9 it states that any communication between the Act and the Engager shall be made exclusively through the Agent, indicating that they don't want either to know the costs involved. I do think, possibly, that that could be where they're getting us, because I contacted the Venue in the first instance to cancel the performance. I thought that only fair, to give them time to find a replacement. Besides, it was a Saturday, and I didn't know they would be at work. They were. There is nothing to say that the Agent can't sue for recompense, but there's nothing to state that they can, except for Clause 6 (deliberate falsehoods or misstatements, neither of which happened because the illness was true and can be backed up by medical certification).

I wouldn't object, too much, if it comes down to it, recompensing them the £300 that the Act were due to be paid. That would seem fairest to me. Anymore than that however is, I feel, over the top and not my responsibility. If we had just cancelled the performance, with no reason, then that would be a different matter. But, illness surely should not be a reason for litigation, especially for such a huge amount. I think that the Agent served papers on me (without legal advice I hasten to add, they just went straight to Small Claims Court) and hoped that I would bow down like a frightened rabbit and pay up. But, I am not an idiot, and can see that there is something not right here. Hence my requests for advice. The better armed I am, the better a case I can present. But, I will see a Solicitor next week.
 
Niknox, you have to bear in mind that there may be verbal contracts that are enforceable existing on top of the written contract. You're looking at it too much from the point of view of the band. You need to look at it as follows:

The band are a service provider. They agreed to provide a service, on behalf of an Agent, to a venue. The service was not provided. As a result the Agent/Venue lost money and/or damaged their reputation. The customers who were to avail of the bands service either (i) did not get the service they were expecting or (ii) the Agent and/or Venue had to provide an alternative service at short notice and possibly at greater cost.

The band are self employed contractors in this arrangement. They did not perform the contract and as a result the receipients of the service lost out. The fact that a member of the band was ill, though unfortunate, is irrevelent - the contract wasnt performed (p.s. what I mean by the "contract wasnt performed" is that the band did not do what had been agreed i.e. play the gig, and this not need be a written contract).

This is no different to e.g.

If you hired a contractor to install e.g. a heating system in your house at a cost of €5k. And as a resuilt of the heating system not being fully installed by the contractor (maybe he was sick?), you got a bad water leak which damaged your house. Wouldnt you expect the contractor to pay for the damage even if the repair costs were €20k - a lot higher than the price you paid the contractor to install the heating?

The comparison with the band is that the €300 is equivalent to the 5k above and the €1,000 to the €20k.

All you can do in this situation is try to get more information on the losses incurred by the various people to ensure that the €1,000 is an accurate and fair amount.
 
I think that the Agent served papers on me (without legal advice I hasten to add, they just went straight to Small Claims Court)
Click to expand...

Small Claims Court is for consumer remedies, it can't adjudicate on commercial contract disputes. But I would tend to agree with Brendan and csirl that you do have some liability, if only from a fairness perspective.
 
MugsGame said:
Small Claims Court is for consumer remedies, it can't adjudicate on commercial contract disputes. But I would tend to agree with Brendan and csirl that you do have some liability, if only from a fairness perspective.
Click to expand...

The OP is in the UK.
 
They did not perform because they could not perform, that's my point really. Had they been fully functional then they would have provided the service they were engaged to do. What would have happened if the van had broken down and was irrepairable on the way to the gig? What I'm saying is, yes I know they were meant to perform and I see the point about them not providing the service they were meant to, but that was because it was impossible for them to do so. I don't think the fact that a member was ill is irrelevant, it's the reason they cancelled. If someone couldn't fit a heating system into my house because they were ill I wouldn't sue them if I had a leak. That's ridiculous. As humans, by nature we are prone to not being able to do things sometimes. It happens. If you don't go to work because you are ill your employer doesn't sue you does he? You have signed a contract to say that you will be there on certain days at certain times, and agree to provide a service to that employer.

I have said previously that if it comes down to it, then the £300 that the band were due to be paid would be a more reasonable amount to pay. They lost out as a result of the illness too, and are £70 out of pocket because they didn't use the van they hired. Could go round and round on this one.
 
Also, if I had a water leak, my home contents insurance would cover it and I would not expect anyone else too. Likewise, the Agent has insurance for exactly this kind of eventuality.
 
It is important that you get a solicitor. He or she will seek to identify the purpose of the compensation and quantify the cost of same. It may well be possible to settle this before the Court. If not, you will at least be better served in Court.
 
Tadhgin said:
It is important that you get a solicitor. He or she will seek to identify the purpose of the compensation and quantify the cost of same. It may well be possible to settle this before the Court. If not, you will at least be better served in Court.
Click to expand...

I know, the only problem with that is that I cannot afford to be represented by a Solicitor. At £180 an hour, average, that's a hell of a lot of money! I'll go for a free consult and then represent myself, if it can't be settled out of Court.
 
Maybe it might be worth considering negotiating a settlement with the Agent? As you said
I wouldn't object, too much, if it comes down to it, recompensing them the £300 that the Act were due to be paid. That would seem fairest to me.
Click to expand...
so in other words you are acknowledging that the other party was put out by this. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to approach them with an offer of partial compo on this basis. It may also be more cost-effective for both parties.
Firstly though, it may be worth asking them to elaborate on "costs incurred", after all, they are asking for a sum which is more than three times what they valued the bands performance at so it is perfectly reasonable for you to query how they arrived at the sum they believe their due. I would ask for a detailed list of the costs incurred. If they refuse to provide then it is reasonable to query the validity of their claim. If they provide figures that add up you can query the costs listed, investigate their reasonableness or haggle with them. I disagree with you though. As I said, the band didn't perform, the reason is pretty immaterial from the perspective of any other parties, they are the ones that suffered a loss due to non-performance. The loss the band suffered was not part of the contract.
 
NikNox said:
They did not perform..
Click to expand...

Precisely. As others have said, they / you did not do what they / you were contractually obliged to do, the reason (or excuse) they / you did not perform is totally irrelevant. Therefore the other party to the written / oral contract(s) is seeking redress.

Legal advice urgently needed.

Are some or all of the band members legally minors, is this why you signed on their behalf? Maybe you said but I must have missed it.
 
mathepac said:
Precisely. As others have said, they / you did not do what they / you were contractually obliged to do, the reason (or excuse) they / you did not perform is totally irrelevant. Therefore the other party to the written / oral contract(s) is seeking redress.

Legal advice urgently needed.

Are some or all of the band members legally minors, is this why you signed on their behalf? Maybe you said but I must have missed it.
Click to expand...

I am going to see a Solicitor next week. None of the band are minors, all are either working full time or full time students, and live within a 40 mile radius of each other. Reason I signed the contract was purely because I was being hassled by the Agent to send it (fairly enough) back to them. They had emailed it to me, so I printed it off and signed it and sent it to them. It was for quickness really. I am one of the band member's mother, and I was running their Myspace, email etc., in an unofficial manner. Teenagers are notoriously bad at organising things, especially boys, so I took it upon myself to help them out.
 
so-crates said:
Maybe it might be worth considering negotiating a settlement with the Agent? As you said

so in other words you are acknowledging that the other party was put out by this. I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to approach them with an offer of partial compo on this basis. It may also be more cost-effective for both parties.
Firstly though, it may be worth asking them to elaborate on "costs incurred", after all, they are asking for a sum which is more than three times what they valued the bands performance at so it is perfectly reasonable for you to query how they arrived at the sum they believe their due. I would ask for a detailed list of the costs incurred. If they refuse to provide then it is reasonable to query the validity of their claim. If they provide figures that add up you can query the costs listed, investigate their reasonableness or haggle with them. I disagree with you though. As I said, the band didn't perform, the reason is pretty immaterial from the perspective of any other parties, they are the ones that suffered a loss due to non-performance. The loss the band suffered was not part of the contract.
Click to expand...

Of course the other party was put out by this. I have never said otherwise and fully acknowledge that. That is why I spent the entire morning of the performance phoning every guitarist I know to try and get a replacement. I was trying to come up with all sorts of scenarios, like the band playing an acoustic set for instance, which they themselves didn't think was possible because (a) they can only perform 2 or 3 of their set acoustically and (b) they felt that £300 for a half hour (max) performance would not be a fair price for the Venue to pay and they felt that a lesser fee would not cover their expenses. I even tried to persuade my son's father to play drums and my son to play bass, but, again, not feasible. It was a day of complete and utter stress, and the decision to cancel was not taken lightly at all.

I will contact the Agent though I think to find out where this £1000 has come from, because I do think that is completely unreasonable. And, surely they have Insurance for this kind of thing. I would of course expect an Agent to make money out of booking a band, but £700? It is a large sum, and I'm interested to see how they justify that.

But, as I have said, I will be going to see a Solicitor next week, just to get things straight from a legal point of view.
 
Why are you being held accountable for this money? Do the band not take any responsibility for it?
 
Harlequin said:
Why are you being held accountable for this money? Do the band not take any responsibility for it?
Click to expand...

The contract is between the Agent (OP) and the Engager, so the Engager is suing the Agent for non-performance, loss, damages, costs, etc.
 
mathepac said:
The contract is between the Agent (OP) and the Engager, so the Engager is suing the Agent for non-performance, loss, damages, costs, etc.
Click to expand...

I am not the Agent. My son's band is the Act, and the Contract is between the Act and the Agent, although the Engager is mentioned in it. The Act cancelled due to illness of one of the members.

The reason the band themselves are not being sued is because I signed the Contract, for quickness more than anything because it was emailed to me as an attachment. I printed it off, signed it and sent it back because the Agent was in a hurry for it. If it had had to be signed by all the members of the band it would have taken an age because they all live in different areas of the county, one 40 miles away.
 
Harlequin said:
Why are you being held accountable for this money? Do the band not take any responsibility for it?
Click to expand...

Because I signed the contract. However, I spoke last night to the band member who was ill, and he has agreed to cover any Solicitors costs (mind you, I told him he would have to!), and if we do end up going to Court and have to pay an amount, he will pay that too. I personally will not be out of pocket, which is good, but I do feel that the Agent is being harsh here. When I spoke to Citizens Advice they couldn't see that the Agent had much of a case at all, but advised I seek legal advice.
 
NikNox said:
Because I signed the contract. However, I spoke last night to the band member who was ill, and he has agreed to cover any Solicitors costs (mind you, I told him he would have to!), and if we do end up going to Court and have to pay an amount, he will pay that too. I personally will not be out of pocket, which is good, but I do feel that the Agent is being harsh here. When I spoke to Citizens Advice they couldn't see that the Agent had much of a case at all, but advised I seek legal advice.
Click to expand...

Well, that's something. It doesn't seem fair that they would let you swing for something that was their fault.
 
Harlequin said:
Well, that's something. It doesn't seem fair that they would let you swing for something that was their fault.
Click to expand...

It is, but my son always said that he wouldn't expect me to cover any costs anyway so I knew the actual payment, if any, wouldn't be down to me. But, it's that word, 'fault'. The way I see it, it is because the band member was ill that the gig was cancelled. However, no-one was at fault as such because illness cannot be helped. He wasn't 'skiving', he was genuinely ill. As I have pointed out to the Court, it was an unforseen circumstance, beyond anyone's control, and therefore compensation, especially of such a large amount, is harsh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top