Sending an invoice you know a company will dispute

[Lucan Unlordly]

In this case no issues had been raised, they just decided without explaining their reasons that they would terminate.

This comment is out of sync with others you've made?

Simple as - they were unhappy with the service I was providing.

Yet they didn't explain?

I don't agree that the situation is as bad as they are making out but I can see

If they didn't explain, how can you determine what they are 'making out'?

 

[GLAbusiness]

You're putting words in my mouth.

No, I am just reading your posts, which, I have to say, are neither cogent nor consistent.

 

[Frank the Insurance guy]

I assume you are providing a professional service?

Do you have Professional Indemnity Insurance?

1. Send the invoice
2. If unpaid, start legal pursuit of the claim
3. As soon as they make any claim or counterclaim making allegations of failures in your performance or breach of contract, speak to your Professional Indemnity Insurer - this should trigger the policy and Insurers will take on the legal defence of allegations etc (ie. will help with your pursuit of the debt).

In some cases your policy may include cover for "fee disputes" - if you have this, Insurers may pay the debt owed to you, where the cost of this is less than them paying the claim.

 

[Naive citizen]

I assume you are providing a professional service?

Do you have Professional Indemnity Insurance?

1. Send the invoice
2. If unpaid, start legal pursuit of the claim
3. As soon as they make any claim or counterclaim making allegations of failures in your performance or breach of contract, speak to your Professional Indemnity Insurer - this should trigger the policy and Insurers will take on the legal defence of allegations etc (ie. will help with your pursuit of the debt).

In some cases your policy may include cover for "fee disputes" - if you have this, Insurers may pay the debt owed to you, where the cost of this is less than them paying the claim.

Very good advice, thank you. I don't have indemnity insurance but I can see how it could be useful and would consider it in the future.

 

[Naive citizen]

I'm a bit confused. Last week (or possibly the week before) you were complaining about being sacked as an employee after having been an employee (of someone else) for more than 12 years. When did you stop being an employee and start this business?

And if you are as legally savant as you have claimed, why are you asking this question?

The whole point of asking questions and posting on public forums is to try to get a flavour for the different ways a situation can play out. It helps avoid issues of tunnel vision where you become too focused on one course and don't see what might be obvious to people with no direct interest in the issue.

I find it entertaining somewhat, coming on here asking for help and receiving responses from people who want to take up an adversarial position, trying to catch me out by examining past postings so they can triumphantly demonstrate their proficiency with the search function. I'm not sure what the motivation is for behaving this way but it's not as unhelpful as it looks as it shows me how people act when they're not on my side and trying to cause me some detriment.

 

[fisicx]

That’s not the case at all. In order to give good advice full and consistent information is required.

Your posts are not consistent which means we are just guessing as to likely outcomes.

 

[Naive citizen]

That’s not the case at all. In order to give good advice full and consistent information is required.

Your posts are not consistent which means we are just guessing as to likely outcomes.

Not sure what's "not the case at all"

Whether or not I find things useful or amusing is up to me.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

I think that is more-or-less the plan.

36 posts to state the obvious!

 

[MRQ]

I find it entertaining somewhat, coming on here asking for help and receiving responses from people who want to take up an adversarial position, trying to catch me out by examining past postings so they can triumphantly demonstrate their proficiency with the search function. I'm not sure what the motivation is for behaving this way but it's not as unhelpful as it looks as it shows me how people act when they're not on my side and trying to cause me some detriment.

Do you? - Find it entertaining, I mean. Possibly this explains much.

Have you formally studied law at all? - Even at the very very elementary level taught on most legitimate business and other vocational courses; by which I mean those that lead to proper examination and certification... As opposed to overdosing on Rumpole and Googling a lot.

If so... why do you not seem to understand that the system you hope to exploit (Civil Law) is, by nature and in fact, adversarial? The way the system works is that opposing parties engage in a 'battle' to convince an impartial and passive judge that their version of the facts is the most convincing. This means presenting arguments in a coherent and consistent way, according to the law and set procedure...

As has been pointed out by Lucan and GLA... your posts are neither.

When you initially 'presented your case' you did so only in veiled and disingenuous terms... For example, you wrote:

"They know the money is due but I can't force them to pay as they've already received the services"

It later transpired that the money you allege is due is not for services delivered at all; instead you plan on invoicing for the 'notice' period of a contract that has been terminated by your client. - Which would be the due only if you had fulfilled your part of the agreement; i.e. not already breached the contract.

I'm taking the part of the contract in isolation which says 3 months is required to terminate the contract. If three months isn't given then there is payment in lieu of notice. This is the bit I'm concentrating on.

This isn't how contract law (or the law in general) works... and as the redoubtable Cyndy Hodgson note ( a woman of great experience and learning) noted; what you had written at that stage did not make a lot of sense...

I pointed out myself in post #11 that you were talking in riddles and that more information was necessary... you were asked several times what the issue your client had was; and chose to ignore.

In post #20 it emerged that:

"the problem is this invoice will be for unpaid notice of termination of the contract which they are obligated to pay by virtue of the agreement of it.
"there is the concern that since they are 'mad at me' (for want of a better phrase) that sending them an invoice for their contractually obliged payment might mean we never do business again."

So... the reality of the situation here is that your invoice isn't (as you had previously claimed) for services actually delivered - but in respect of a termination 'penalty' in a respect which was summarily ended by the client.

You were then asked - and again failed or refused to answer the question - why they terminated. Pertinent attempts were also made to establish the scale and nature of the issue; which you again failed or refused to address and instead became evasive about...

We were then 'treated' to this frankly absurd statement of your advocating 'legal on the cheap' and asserting claims of past success in this respect...

It then emerges that others had engaged with you in previous posts you made to the forum; and clearly remembered those encounters...

Quite correctly it was recalled that you were previously claiming to be a disgruntled ex-employee intent on suing an employer who had sacked you after only a short period of time. This, supposedly after twelve years or steady employment elsewhere.

...Now you have a 'business' which is entering into B2B contracts. - Who draws these contracts up? What legal or other professional training do they have? (rhetorical; I suspect most people here are past caring)

Does it not actually occur to you that individuals with decades of business experience; including individuals who actually are Lawyers... will take the position they do because that's what education and experience of dealing with such matters has taught them to do? - Experientia docet!

"The whole point of asking questions and posting on public forums is to try to get a flavour for the different ways a situation can play out. It helps avoid issues of tunnel vision where you become too focused on one course and don't see what might be obvious to people with no direct interest in the issue."

...I suspect you really don't see the irony in what you've written here.

"I find it entertaining somewhat..."

Deflection and projection... gaslighting... Nobody is here to entertain you. And the only questionable behaviour here is your own. - Nobody knows or cares who you are; so the notion that they're 'not on your side' is nothing more than infantile self-pity...

Based on what you've written here I'd expect any seasoned business person to simply ignore your invoice; were you to press the matter and attempt to raise a court action you might find the reaction to your claims (from Lawyers) is along the lines of: “Irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification” - as they say here in Scotland. There will no doubt be an equivalent English/Welsh riposte.

For an explanation of the phrase, I'll refer you to a lawyer: gebbiewilson.co.uk/lacking-in-specification-life-as-a-country-solicitor/

 

[japancool]

Sounds like a customer not happy with some dodgy SEO "services".

Judge Judy would have a field day.

 

[MRQ]

Sounds like a customer not happy with some dodgy SEO "services".

Judge Judy would have a field day.

O/T slightly; was anyone here a member of the old FSB forum when it became 'overwhelmed' by that post on the Corbis/Getty/Coles case?

...Some time later I discovered the 'web expert' in question had set up a webshop for a Whisky distillery which retailed direct to the UK public; but had prices (headline and otherwise) published ex-VAT, which was added on at checkout as a 'nice wee surprise'. - This, apparently, was for the benefit of foreign buyers; if you were in the UK the customer had to tick a box to add it. You'd think folk running a distillery (of all people) would be familiar enough with what Customs and Excise have to say on such things.

- Somehow I'm reminded of that particular stramash!

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Depending on your point of view sometimes less is more. Usually particularly pedantic detailed contracts are the preserve of high finance or large corporates and most employment contracts tend to be this way too. But if you leave out everything from the contract apart from the 3 or 4 principles of your arrangement that means everything else is open to argument and that ultimately means whoever is right will win any argument should it get to that stage.

The other issue with overly complicated contracts is that you can find it very difficult to enforce contractual obligations so perhaps the only details worth any of your time is how to end the contract and how much you get paid.

Here's some advice given way back in 2014 to another poster about the necessity or not of overly complicated contracts. Maybe the OP of this thread would like to reflect and learn from it....................

........................'oh hang on!'

 

[Naive citizen]

Do you? - Find it entertaining, I mean. Possibly this explains much.

Have you formally studied law at all? - Even at the very very elementary level taught on most legitimate business and other vocational courses; by which I mean those that lead to proper examination and certification... As opposed to overdosing on Rumpole and Googling a lot.

If so... why do you not seem to understand that the system you hope to exploit (Civil Law) is, by nature and in fact, adversarial? The way the system works is that opposing parties engage in a 'battle' to convince an impartial and passive judge that their version of the facts is the most convincing. This means presenting arguments in a coherent and consistent way, according to the law and set procedure...

As has been pointed out by Lucan and GLA... your posts are neither.

When you initially 'presented your case' you did so only in veiled and disingenuous terms... For example, you wrote:

"They know the money is due but I can't force them to pay as they've already received the services"

It later transpired that the money you allege is due is not for services delivered at all; instead you plan on invoicing for the 'notice' period of a contract that has been terminated by your client. - Which would be the due only if you had fulfilled your part of the agreement; i.e. not already breached the contract.



This isn't how contract law (or the law in general) works... and as the redoubtable Cyndy Hodgson note ( a woman of great experience and learning) noted; what you had written at that stage did not make a lot of sense...

I pointed out myself in post #11 that you were talking in riddles and that more information was necessary... you were asked several times what the issue your client had was; and chose to ignore.

In post #20 it emerged that:

"the problem is this invoice will be for unpaid notice of termination of the contract which they are obligated to pay by virtue of the agreement of it.
"there is the concern that since they are 'mad at me' (for want of a better phrase) that sending them an invoice for their contractually obliged payment might mean we never do business again."

So... the reality of the situation here is that your invoice isn't (as you had previously claimed) for services actually delivered - but in respect of a termination 'penalty' in a respect which was summarily ended by the client.

You were then asked - and again failed or refused to answer the question - why they terminated. Pertinent attempts were also made to establish the scale and nature of the issue; which you again failed or refused to address and instead became evasive about...

We were then 'treated' to this frankly absurd statement of your advocating 'legal on the cheap' and asserting claims of past success in this respect...

It then emerges that others had engaged with you in previous posts you made to the forum; and clearly remembered those encounters...

Quite correctly it was recalled that you were previously claiming to be a disgruntled ex-employee intent on suing an employer who had sacked you after only a short period of time. This, supposedly after twelve years or steady employment elsewhere.

...Now you have a 'business' which is entering into B2B contracts. - Who draws these contracts up? What legal or other professional training do they have? (rhetorical; I suspect most people here are past caring)

Does it not actually occur to you that individuals with decades of business experience; including individuals who actually are Lawyers... will take the position they do because that's what education and experience of dealing with such matters has taught them to do? - Experientia docet!

"The whole point of asking questions and posting on public forums is to try to get a flavour for the different ways a situation can play out. It helps avoid issues of tunnel vision where you become too focused on one course and don't see what might be obvious to people with no direct interest in the issue."

...I suspect you really don't see the irony in what you've written here.

"I find it entertaining somewhat..."

Deflection and projection... gaslighting... Nobody is here to entertain you. And the only questionable behaviour here is your own. - Nobody knows or cares who you are; so the notion that they're 'not on your side' is nothing more than infantile self-pity...

Based on what you've written here I'd expect any seasoned business person to simply ignore your invoice; were you to press the matter and attempt to raise a court action you might find the reaction to your claims (from Lawyers) is along the lines of: “Irrelevant et separatim lacking in specification” - as they say here in Scotland. There will no doubt be an equivalent English/Welsh riposte.

For an explanation of the phrase, I'll refer you to a lawyer: gebbiewilson.co.uk/lacking-in-specification-life-as-a-country-solicitor/

Thankyou, despite the strange tone and apparent absurdity of motivation in this post it has been helpful!

 

[Naive citizen]

Here's some advice given way back in 2014 to another poster about the necessity or not of overly complicated contracts. Maybe the OP of this thread would like to reflect and learn from it....................

........................'oh hang on!'

This is still true. If my client here had not agreed a three month termination clause there would be nothing for me to argue over. Why did they put it in there... they imagined it would be to their advantage. Anything you put in a contract has the potential to act like a double-edged sword and you really have to think about what could happen if you put in something extra that you want for a specific reason, whether it could be useful for another reason which might not be so good for you.

Generally in my defence of the forensic grilling given in some of the more recent posts I would say this is obviously a public forum and the line "We don't comment on specific ongoing cases" that you hear often enough in public life quite obviously applies. It wouldn't be sensible to write on here specific details and I return to my earlier comment RE: general flavour.

Here is some sensible writing on the issue of oversharing:

Social media postings used as evidence - Bretherton Law

When legal matters come before the Courts, decisions are arrived at according to the evidence presented. What many people do not realise is that

www.brethertonlaw.co.uk

"When legal matters come before the Courts, decisions are arrived at according to the evidence presented. What many people do not realise is that statements they make on Facebook, text messages they send, or photographs they post on Instagram can (and will) be admitted into proceedings as evidence, often with far-reaching consequences.

With their sometimes compulsive use of social media, more and more people are being caught out by what they post online. A seemingly harmless and flippant comment, status update, or photograph posted online only a short time ago can look entirely different when examined under the microscope of a divorce hearing, employment dispute, or trial for sexual assault. And although many social media platforms have privacy settings, stating only ‘friends’ can see the post, we should be aware that those ‘friends’ may happily share the social media post with the court in order to bolster their position or try to damage their opponent’s.

A case heard at the Court of Appeal in December, 2017, quashed the rape conviction of a Derbyshire man who had already spent two years in jail for the alleged offence. New evidence in the man’s Facebook account enabled defence lawyers to convince the Court that the jury had been given an edited and misleading account of events by the woman involved, leading to the man’s release from prison and the quashing of his four and a half year sentence.

Little of what anyone chooses to post online now remains private. Social media in itself is designed for sharing. So remember, you should think twice about exactly what you are posting online. Should you one day find yourself in Court, even private messages may not remain that private for long."

 

[fisicx]

All that may be true but it’s your inconsistent posting that confuses and confounds. The story appears to change each time you post.

Maybe the 3 month clause is there but as you also state they were unsatisfied with the service you offered a different clause may take precedence.

 

[Newchodge]

This is still true. If my client here had not agreed a three month termination clause there would be nothing for me to argue over. Why did they put it in there... they imagined it would be to their advantage. Anything you put in a contract has the potential to act like a double-edged sword and you really have to think about what could happen if you put in something extra that you want for a specific reason, whether it could be useful for another reason which might not be so good for you.

Generally in my defence of the forensic grilling given in some of the more recent posts I would say this is obviously a public forum and the line "We don't comment on specific ongoing cases" that you hear often enough in public life quite obviously applies. It wouldn't be sensible to write on here specific details and I return to my earlier comment RE: general flavour.

Here is some sensible writing on the issue of oversharing:

Social media postings used as evidence - Bretherton Law

When legal matters come before the Courts, decisions are arrived at according to the evidence presented. What many people do not realise is that

www.brethertonlaw.co.uk

"When legal matters come before the Courts, decisions are arrived at according to the evidence presented. What many people do not realise is that statements they make on Facebook, text messages they send, or photographs they post on Instagram can (and will) be admitted into proceedings as evidence, often with far-reaching consequences.

With their sometimes compulsive use of social media, more and more people are being caught out by what they post online. A seemingly harmless and flippant comment, status update, or photograph posted online only a short time ago can look entirely different when examined under the microscope of a divorce hearing, employment dispute, or trial for sexual assault. And although many social media platforms have privacy settings, stating only ‘friends’ can see the post, we should be aware that those ‘friends’ may happily share the social media post with the court in order to bolster their position or try to damage their opponent’s.

A case heard at the Court of Appeal in December, 2017, quashed the rape conviction of a Derbyshire man who had already spent two years in jail for the alleged offence. New evidence in the man’s Facebook account enabled defence lawyers to convince the Court that the jury had been given an edited and misleading account of events by the woman involved, leading to the man’s release from prison and the quashing of his four and a half year sentence.

Little of what anyone chooses to post online now remains private. Social media in itself is designed for sharing. So remember, you should think twice about exactly what you are posting online. Should you one day find yourself in Court, even private messages may not remain that private for long."

So why are you posting?

 

[Mark T Jones]

So why are you posting?

My guess would be either a bizarre approach to college work or a fevered imagination.

There is a strong consistency to all of the OP's threads

- Broad question lacking in detail.
- Refusal to provide specifics
- Claims of superior legal knowledge
- Attack anyone suggesting they need to give proper information
- Flounce out.

Decent light entertainment, absolutely non business value to any party.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

This is still true. If my client here had not agreed a three month termination clause there would be nothing for me to argue over.

Yet you left it out of your contract and happily proceeded with a get out clause that you now dispute?