getting sued over wedding pictures

"Lisa Horton" <Lisanews0509 DeleteThis @lisahorton.net> wrote in message
news:41014EC4.FFE9F5@lisahorton.net...
 >
 >
 > Ron wrote:
  > >
  > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
  > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said
  > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
did
  > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
  > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
and
  > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
photographer
  > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
me?
  > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
 >
 > I can only wonder just what they intend to sue you FOR? Breach of
 > contract? Tough without a contract. They didn't get what they paid
 > for? Hmmm... Of course I'm sure you've already offered to return to
 > them all that they paid you

There are doctrines called equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel, both
of which use reliance in place of consideration (technically, equitable
estoppel is not a contract doctrine; promissory estoppel is). There might
even be a _technical_ basis for a fraud claim.

This is, however, a technical legal analysis, and not an opinion as to the
merit of a suit brought against this photographer by his so-called friend.


 >
 > Lisa<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

"Ron" <nospam RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message news:2md0igFll9v2U1@uni-berlin.de...
 > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
 > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He said
 > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
did
 > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
 > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor and
 > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding photographer
 > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
me?
 > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.


Perhaps you can deflect his anger in another direction by telling him, "I
took a close look at the photos I shot of you and your bride and the images
are certainly true-to-life. After you remove all the mirrors from your
house, maybe you two should think about suing God. Or your parents. And
try not to look at each other while eating or you'll wind up suing each
other."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2md598FlfanjU1@uni-berlin.de...
 >
 > "Lisa Horton" <Lisanews0509 DeleteThis @lisahorton.net> wrote in message
 > news:41014EC4.FFE9F5@lisahorton.net...
  > >
  > >
  > > Ron wrote:
   > > >
   > > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
   > > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
 > said
   > > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow
I
 > did
   > > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of
the
   > > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
 > and
   > > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
 > photographer
   > > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually
sue
 > me?
   > > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
  > >
  > > I can only wonder just what they intend to sue you FOR? Breach of
  > > contract? Tough without a contract. They didn't get what they paid
  > > for? Hmmm... Of course I'm sure you've already offered to return to
  > > them all that they paid you
 >
 > There are doctrines called equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel,
both
 > of which use reliance in place of consideration (technically, equitable
 > estoppel is not a contract doctrine; promissory estoppel is). There might
 > even be a _technical_ basis for a fraud claim.
 >
 > This is, however, a technical legal analysis, and not an opinion as to the
 > merit of a suit brought against this photographer by his so-called friend.


And here I thought "estoppel" was just a fancy French name for a butt-plug!
That's what I like about rec.photo.digital--you learn something new every
single freakin' day!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

It was a favor. There is such a thing as a verbal agreement but no money
changed hands. What can he sue you for?

Now I'm wondering if I can sue a troll...

"Ron" <nospam DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote in message news:2md0igFll9v2U1@uni-berlin.de...
 > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
 > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He said
 > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
did
 > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
 > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor and
 > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding photographer
 > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
me?
 > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

 > There are doctrines called equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel, both
 > of which use reliance in place of consideration (technically, equitable
 > estoppel is not a contract doctrine; promissory estoppel is).

Equitable estoppel: did not the "begging" of the newlyweds for Ron to
attend the wedding with camera in hand make their hands unclean?

Promissory estoppel: even if a contract was deemed to be present the
defendant _did_ show up and _did_ take pictures (140 of them), so what
claim could remain? (Perhaps there were other aspects of the promise
that Ron has no admitted to in this forum ... a likely scenario, but a
better theory is that this Ron dude is just trolling.)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

There is no contract but not because no money changed hands. There is no
contract because there is none of what is called "consideration" given by
the guy who got married. Both sides to a contract have to "give" something
before there is a contract. That is what in the legal world is called
"consideration. The photographer agreed to take the pictures
("consideration" on his part). The guy who got married didn't agree to give
anything (zip consideration on his part). No contract between these parties
was ever made. Ignore the guy's threats...


"BG250" <anon.RemoveThis@anon.com> wrote in message
news:10g2pr3mftnig41@corp.supernews.com...
 > It was a favor. There is such a thing as a verbal agreement but no money
 > changed hands. What can he sue you for?
 >
 > Now I'm wondering if I can sue a troll...
 >
 > "Ron" <nospam.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2md0igFll9v2U1@uni-berlin.de...
  > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
  > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said
  > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I
 > did
  > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
  > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
and
  > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
photographer
  > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue
 > me?
  > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

"Don Forsling" <dforsling.TakeThisOut@msn.com> wrote in message
news:10g2v1gr3s78557@news.supernews.com...
 >
 > There is no contract but not because no money changed hands.

That's wrong. Consideration can be other than money.


 > There is no
 > contract because there is none of what is called "consideration" given by
 > the guy who got married.

See above. There are also substitutes for consideration, as a matter of
law, that can make an agreement enforceable. The doctrine is called
"promissory estoppel."

 >Both sides to a contract have to "give" something
 > before there is a contract.

There are exceptions -- see above.

 > That is what in the legal world is called
 > "consideration.

Consideration doesn't have to be money and, per common law, can be a "mere
peppercorn."

 > The photographer agreed to take the pictures
 > ("consideration" on his part). The guy who got married didn't agree to
give
 > anything (zip consideration on his part). No contract between these
parties
 > was ever made. Ignore the guy's threats...
 >
 >
 > "BG250" <anon.TakeThisOut@anon.com> wrote in message
 > news:10g2pr3mftnig41@corp.supernews.com...
  > > It was a favor. There is such a thing as a verbal agreement but no money
  > > changed hands. What can he sue you for?
  > >
  > > Now I'm wondering if I can sue a troll...
  > >
  > > "Ron" <nospam.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
 > news:2md0igFll9v2U1@uni-berlin.de...
   > > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
   > > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
 > said
   > > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow
I
  > > did
   > > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of
the
   > > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
 > and
   > > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
 > photographer
   > > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually
sue
  > > me?
   > > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

No good deed goes unpunished.
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

<eawckyegcy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d3c57e81.0407231444.1e6907ca@posting.google.com...
 > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-usenet.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
 >
  > > There are doctrines called equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel,
both
  > > of which use reliance in place of consideration (technically, equitable
  > > estoppel is not a contract doctrine; promissory estoppel is).
 >
 > Equitable estoppel: did not the "begging" of the newlyweds for Ron to
 > attend the wedding with camera in hand make their hands unclean?

No. Unclean hands requires illegal or, at least, unethical conduct. Their
argument would go something like this: "Yes, we asked him to do it, but only
because he told us that he was a good photographer and we could save a lot
of money by using him." Neither illegal nor unethical.

 >
 > Promissory estoppel: even if a contract was deemed to be present the
 > defendant _did_ show up and _did_ take pictures (140 of them), so what
 > claim could remain? (Perhaps there were other aspects of the promise
 > that Ron has no admitted to in this forum ... a likely scenario, but a
 > better theory is that this Ron dude is just trolling.)

You're implying a contract that merely required the taking of photographs.
I'd imply a contract that required the taking of photographs at a reasonable
level of competency.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

In article <41014EC4.FFE9F5.RemoveThis@lisahorton.net>, Lisanews0509.RemoveThis@lisahorton.net
says...
  > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
  > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He said
  > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow I did
  > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of the
  > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor and
  > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding photographer
  > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually sue me?
  > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
 >
 > I can only wonder just what they intend to sue you FOR? Breach of
 > contract? Tough without a contract. They didn't get what they paid
 > for? Hmmm... Of course I'm sure you've already offered to return to
 > them all that they paid you

Indeed. Also, I think he should change that beginning to "a former
friend of mine..."

Any chance we can see the pics? Does the bride have a bun in the oven?
Hard to cover that up.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam.TakeThisOut@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b6b1bbd9df3b9d5989f51@news.verizon.net...
 > In article <41014EC4.FFE9F5.TakeThisOut@lisahorton.net>, Lisanews0509.TakeThisOut@lisahorton.net
 > says...
   > > > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
   > > > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
said
   > > > they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures. Anyhow
I did
   > > > take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all with any of
the
   > > > images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did this as a favor
and
   > > > for no charge they made the decision to skip out on a wedding
photographer
   > > > and use me for free (and I emphasize as a favor). Can they actually
sue me?
   > > > This is worrysome since I never had legal issues in my life.
  > >
  > > I can only wonder just what they intend to sue you FOR? Breach of
  > > contract? Tough without a contract. They didn't get what they paid
  > > for? Hmmm... Of course I'm sure you've already offered to return to
  > > them all that they paid you
 >
 > Indeed. Also, I think he should change that beginning to "a former
 > friend of mine..."
 >
 > Any chance we can see the pics? Does the bride have a bun in the oven?
 > Hard to cover that up.

Oooh.....you're evil! I like it! <!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

Ron wrote:
 > A friend of mines who invited me to his wedding begged me to take his
 > wedding pictures (he knows I have pro equipment, new 1Dmk2 etc..) He
 > said they were short of money and would love it if I took pictures.
 > Anyhow I did take pictures (140) and him+newwife are not happy at all
 > with any of the images and are planning to sue me. First of all I did
 > this as a favor and for no charge they made the decision to skip out
 > on a wedding photographer and use me for free (and I emphasize as a
 > favor). Can they actually sue me? This is worrysome since I never had
 > legal issues in my life.

I think you should sue them for the cost of all materials.

--
Joseph E. Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures 

Here we get into the battle between experts. Same thing happens in
engineering (my field).

So, could you two legal eagles post your opinion based more on common sense
and common language?

I am not being a smart ass. I am just curious as to how you two actually
"feel" about this.

The true mark of a professional is one who gains acumen in his/her field
without losing touch with the rest of us.
 >> Stay informed about: getting sued over wedding pictures