Stooping, or fair? (rant...) - Page 4
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Horse Resources > Horse Law

Stooping, or fair? (rant...)

This is a discussion on Stooping, or fair? (rant...) within the Horse Law forums, part of the Horse Resources category
  • Judge wapner the people's court mule case
  • Judge wapner mule case

Like Tree15Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    03-10-2012, 12:25 AM
  #31
Weanling
The person doing the work was given specific assignments. Even when it wasn't done to our standards, but an attempt was made, they still received full credit and were shown AGAIN what was expected. THEY even kept their own records, and they always matched ours. Again, no discrepancy, Christinenj. The matter has been dealt with professionally. We DID receive payment in full after a firm reminder of the contractual obligations. Regardless of how hard the woman tried to spin it, she paid the balance in full because it was contractually owed. I think that speaks volumes about the truth of the situation. She absolutely would not have paid of she truly didnt believe she owed it; it is just the kind of people they are. They thought they'd bully us with hurtful words and we'd back down (because we've been nothing but accommodating of them thus far) - they were sorely and very stupidly mistaken.

Thanks for your support and understanding, Nine :)
Posted via Mobile Device
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    03-10-2012, 08:40 AM
  #32
Weanling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineNJ    
Actually, there are always 2 sides to every story and we're not hearing the other side. I was just wondering how you can be sure of how much work she was doing? I'm sure you didn't stand there watching her all the time. Or did you? I just think that you are very angry and it would be best for everyone including yourself if you just let it go. If she is as nasty, "two-faced & as "stupid" as you say why bother with her? I don't think it is worth the agravation to deal with her anymore if she is as bad as you say.
Sometimes, when you're in business, it's not necessarily about the money, it's about the principle of the matter.
If you hired a contractor to perform a specific repair to your home, let's say a roof replacement, and they did an incomplete job as specified in the contract, would you pay in full?
Or, would you short pay it, waiting to pay in full until the job was completed per the contract?
Having owned a couple service type businesses, and having dealt with people like this on numerous occasions, if it isnt in writing, it never happened and cannot be proven.
My personal favorite was a job I had bid to take 5 days and the total bill was $3000.
The contract spelled out very specifically everything that we would perform for the homeowner, in detail, in writing.
We finished the job in 3 days. Everything went perfectly, well beyond what I could have ever have imagined.
The homeowner came out, inspected everything, and agreed that we had performed our job as specified or better.
He went back inside to cut the check, as we completed securing 10 tons of pine logs on the trailer, which happened to be right across the driveway, which sloped downhill towards the house.
He came back out, with a check for half of the amount due.
Now remember, he had agreed that all work had been completed per our contract...
His "justification" was that the job only took half the time I anticipated it would.
He even threatened to call the cops on me if we didnt leave!
So, what should I have done in your eyes?
I'll tell you what I actually did....
When he threatened to call the cops, I told him to go for it.
I'd even give him the personal cell numbers for the Chief, the Sherriff, the DA, and the town Mayor if he liked. (They and I shot handguns competitively at the time, along with many of the local officers, detectives, and deputies)
He got flustered, started babbling about highway robbery and the like, and still wouldn't pay up.
So, I had my guys start loosening the straps on the load of logs.
His wife came out to see what the brouhaha was about, so I showed her what her hubby had attempted to do.
She apologized, marched him back inside, and cut the check properly for the full amount of the contract.
What's the principle here that applies in both cases?
A contract was in hand that specified in writing certain services and activities for a specific price, that was agreed upon by all parties involved.
One party attempted to renegotiate the terms after the fact based upon their own perceived "right" to renege on their responsibilities, and they got called out on it.
The service provider in both instances held up their end of the agreement and there was ultimately no basis for dispute of that fact, making the client responsible for compensation in full for the agreed upon monies.
People like these are the 5% that take up 90% of my time as a business owner.
Theyre very difficult to deal with, feel compelled to tell you how important they are in their own mind, and do their very best to make something that's simple into something obnoxiously difficult.
They screw things up for the other 95% of great clients whom take care of things appropriately, promptly, and as agreed.
I adore great clients. They also usually get a little bonus for being a great client, be it something nice, like a little present personalized for them, or a little discount on the final invoice.
The turd clients get nothing but a thank you for your business.
A business is in business to be profitable. It's not a charity, no handouts on request, and no freebies on request.
We provide goods and/or services for a price, which we hope is profitable. That's where our paycheck comes from. It's not an hourly wage, or salary, that's guranteed every week or month.
Our paycheck is a direct reflection of how well we serve our clients every single day.
The better job we do, the more we make, at least in theory.
Now, having said all this, you can agree with me, or disagree with me, and it makes no difference to me.
The rules of business are simple, and irrefutable.
Serve people well, meet or exceed their expectations, control expenses, and make money.
Fail to do so, and you're out of business quick, and you'll work for someone who does follow the laws of business well.
sillyhorses likes this.
     
    03-10-2012, 08:42 AM
  #33
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineNJ    
Actually, there are always 2 sides to every story and we're not hearing the other side. I was just wondering how you can be sure of how much work she was doing? I'm sure you didn't stand there watching her all the time. Or did you? I just think that you are very angry and it would be best for everyone including yourself if you just let it go. If she is as nasty, "two-faced & as "stupid" as you say why bother with her? I don't think it is worth the agravation to deal with her anymore if she is as bad as you say.
Just who are you to tell anyone how to run a business and deal with delinquent debtors?

Have you ever run a business yourself? Have you ever been stiffed by non-payment?

Your commentary is way out of line.
     
    03-11-2012, 12:18 AM
  #34
Foal
Maybe the family were not so terrible because supposedly they paid the bill when they received it in the mail. Again, we never heard their side of the story.....it might be quite different! There are three sides to every story....my side, your side and the truth!
Azwantapaint...... the materials & work for a home project is something concrete and can be seen whereas who is to prove what work was done and how it was done is intangeable and something that is seen differently by different people. I would love to see this case go to court with Judge Judy presiding!!!! I'm sure she would have alot of questions for sillyhorses.
Mildot =Pfffffffff
NeuroticMare likes this.
     
    03-11-2012, 01:13 AM
  #35
Weanling
Contract = boarding facility provides x, y and z in exchange for set amount of $$$. We provided x, y and z... There was never a question regarding that.

WORK ARRANGEMENT: 1 stall = set amount of $, per stall. Additional odd jobs... Credit value agreed upon on job by job basis.

You pretty much cannot go wrong there, especially since, in the year they had been here, why the heck would they have stayed or continued to provide work if they were shorted? Oh yeah...AND the part where, each month the people told us "this is what we came up with...", and it matched ours (we never had a dispute). If it hadn't, do you really think they'd
Have stayed? Would a reasonable person have stayed? No.

Not to mention, this woman wrote the dates/number of stalls cleaned on 75% of her board checks...squeezed it in on the tiny note line, haha.

Not sure why you feel the need to try to play devils advocate? Starting to think, with your nonsense, vague "rebuttals", you may be this person! It is pretty cut and dry stuff. Also, please read: the woman reviewed the invoice, and verified it was correct (work credit and all), before going home and getting irked that they couldn't afford to be here and became a jerk about it.
Posted via Mobile Device
     
    03-11-2012, 01:23 AM
  #36
Weanling
P.s. While outside of television Judge Judy had been an actual judge, her television personality is not "real life", and she plays up a part of herself that is quite unprofessional and dramatic. People who are on that show sign a CONTRACT acknowledging that, although they are out of proper jurisdiction, they wil abide by Judge Judy's verdict - like it or not. Guess what - outside of that "mock"courtroom, that CONTRACT is what will be enforced.
Posted via Mobile Device
     
    03-11-2012, 01:30 AM
  #37
Weanling
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristineNJ    
Maybe the family were not so terrible because supposedly they paid the bill when they received it in the mail. Again, we never heard their side of the story.....it might be quite different! There are three sides to every story....my side, your side and the truth!
Azwantapaint...... the materials & work for a home project is something concrete and can be seen whereas who is to prove what work was done and how it was done is intangeable and something that is seen differently by different people. I would love to see this case go to court with Judge Judy presiding!!!! I'm sure she would have alot of questions for sillyhorses.
Mildot =Pfffffffff
The specifics of a written contract are also concrete, and can be seen as well.
Mending a fence, cleaning a stall, sweeping a floor, and the like, are all very tangible things.
Their longevity and persistent nature of results may be very different than that of a roof, but are readily provable and easily documentable in the same fashion.
My money says Judge Judy would eat the client alive, sillyhorses would win her case, and a verbal beatdown of the client would be the result.
How can I prove work done/not done/shoddy or half cocked effort?
It's not rocket science, and it's not difficult.
It's a nifty little gizmo called a digital camera.
Before and after photos are irrefutable.
A contrasting photo of a "proper" job on a given task to demonstrate the quality of workmanship expected, and the client's failure to perform.
How would I document a fence mending task?
A photo before, a photo after completion, and if I had to go back and do it over, a third photo of the job done "properly", along with time necessary to complete the project on top of the time wasted on shoddy workmanship.
Your roof may look great, but if it leaks like a sieve when it rains, it's about worthless. It is unable to perform the job for which it was procured.
If I hire you to fix my fenceline, we would make a contract specifying who is responsible for what, who procures materials, and who performs what duties. We would also agree on compensation in accordance with the tasks at hand as spelled out in our agreement, and the level of expectation of the end results.
For example, to use the pasture where our horses are currently boarded as the example-
Agreement to repair fences at xyz ranch, northeast pasture, from the gate at so and so location, northward 287' to the ne corner of said pasture, westward 169' to the nw corner of said pasture, southward 293' to the sw corner of said pasture, eastward to and including the gate of said pasture.
Work to be performed as follows:
1) top wire shall be taut across all posts.
2) wire fencing shall be repaired or replaced as necessary. No holes exceeding 2.5"x4.5" shall be allowed, measured at 3 points equidistant from the center of the opening in question.
3) all materials for repair shall be procured by the ranch in a timely fashion not to exceed 24 hours from notification. In the event that equal materials are unavailable in a timely dashion, (ie on backorder), the ranch has sole disctretion as to how to procure the materials necessary to complete the work.
4) any structural issues shall be brought to the attention of ranch management point of contact joey bagadonuts for additional assessment and instructions on how to proceed.
$500.00, to be paid in 3 increments. $100 due at signing of this agreement by both parties, $200 at completion, and $200 following final inspection.
     
    03-11-2012, 10:40 AM
  #38
Foal
Yikes Azwant.....you might as well do the job yourself if your going around with a camera all day. Don't forget the woman/family was fired so she was "irked" about that!. Ya think? As for Judge Judy, yes, she is a real Judge and was a Judge in Family Court for many years. I do believe that she was as tough in Family Court as she is on TV. Sillyhorse, that IS her personality! It's not just a TV persona. And, yes, it is a real Court and the verdicts stand because it is a real Court and because they are based on "real" law. I enjoy watching her because she sniffs out the truth every time. And the people who are not telling the truth deserve what they get! "Rough Justice"
     
    03-11-2012, 10:58 AM
  #39
Weanling
If you have a cell phone, you have a camera with a date/time stamp.
Being that the vast majority of us have cell phones....you get the picture.
Out of curiosity, who has TIME to watch television?
If you have time to burn like that, you might want to find a hobby or other creative outlet for your energy.
     
    03-11-2012, 12:36 PM
  #40
Weanling
Interesting conversation. :) Glad to hear the situation was resolved.

The OP asked about "stooping to their level" in a letter detailing "why" money was owed. My feeling has always been doing this type of thing is a big mistake. While it may may you feel better to "get it off your chest," there are too many negatives that can come back to bite you.

First, you have to realize it is all business - not personal. Someone owes you money, you send them a bill with the amount. Explaining why they owe you money outside of the "description of product/services" serves no useful purpose. It can also hurt you.

If someone owes you $500 for one month board, that's all the invoice should ever say. If you add to this with some long explanation, that explanation could end up being considered part of the arrangement. If you end up in court/arbitration your letter - and the long explanation - becomes part of the agreement. It rarely works in your favor always seems to work against you. The less you say, the better.

Going into a long explanation also tends to muddy the conversation. Someone owes you "$500 for x" is short and to the point. I either owe you or I don't. Add two or three pages of explanation to that simple statement and I now have plenty to argue/discuss with you. "That wasn't a Tuesday, it was a Wednesday!" "That couldn't have been me, I was visiting my Mother that day and I can prove it." All minor details that have nothing to do with the actual amount owed, but can still sidetrack the conversation.

Look at this thread. It is now talking about Judge Judy, which has no bearing on the original question. Not a comment on any of the people here - just showing how too much information can easily confuse the issue.


BTW - "Judge Judy" is NOT a real court. It is considered arbitration. Yes, the participants sign contracts and the decision is legally binding. But still not a real court. Despite any prior career, Judy is now a TV actor and not acting on this show as a real elected or appointed "judge."

Her show is a take-off of the original "People's Court" (Judge Wapner for you fellow old-timers). In the old People's Court, I recall the participants being compensated for appearance. If memory serves, the monetary judgements were paid by the show's producers. Participants, by agreeing to the decisions, would waive any future legal claims. Thus, the show's decision was "final" and no one had to be chased down to collect the money (thereby, eliminating any bad publicity for the show). I would bet Judge Judy works the same way. It, like "Dr. Phil" and many other shows is for entertainment and has little resemblance to reality.
     

Quick Reply
Please help keep the Horse Forum enjoyable by reporting rude posts.
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the The Horse Forum forums, you must first register.

Already have a Horse Forum account?
Members are allowed only one account per person at the Horse Forum, so if you've made an account here in the past you'll need to continue using that account. Please do not create a new account or you may lose access to the Horse Forum. If you need help recovering your existing account, please Contact Us. We'll be glad to help!

New to the Horse Forum?
Please choose a username you will be satisfied with using for the duration of your membership at the Horse Forum. We do not change members' usernames upon request because that would make it difficult for everyone to keep track of who is who on the forum. For that reason, please do not incorporate your horse's name into your username so that you are not stuck with a username related to a horse you may no longer have some day, or use any other username you may no longer identify with or care for in the future.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Old Thread Warning
This thread is more than 90 days old. When a thread is this old, it is often better to start a new thread rather than post to it. However, If you feel you have something of value to add to this particular thread, you can do so by checking the box below before submitting your post.

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just not fair....just gotta rant ladybugsgirl General Off Topic Discussion 5 10-10-2010 01:44 PM
Barn Drama.....rant rant rant Cinnys Whinny Horse Talk 11 06-04-2010 03:57 AM
Getting So Frustrated with Myself =( (rant rant rant) rocky pony Horse Talk 4 02-06-2010 08:02 PM
Mule and the Fair *Rant* mlkarel2010 Horse Talk 9 05-07-2008 11:44 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0