getting sued over wedding pictures

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Ron, Jul 23, 2004.

  1. Ron

    Ron Guest

    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.
    Ron, Jul 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ron

    Lisa Horton Guest

    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 :)

    Lisa Horton, Jul 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ron

    Doug Kanter Guest're evil! I like it! :)
    Doug Kanter, Jul 23, 2004
  4. Ron

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Sounds like your former friend has an innovative plan to
    solve his short of money problem.

    Tell him to give you back any copies he may have; that you'll
    fix them up for him.

    As soon as you have them all in hand, decide that you don't
    like them either; destroy 'em all.

    With friends like that you don't need enemies :)

    Ken Weitzel, Jul 23, 2004
  5. Ron

    PTRAVEL Guest

    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.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 23, 2004
  6. Ron

    Zebedee Guest

    1. Tell your ex-friend to get knotted.
    2. Ignore everything he or she says/does.
    3. If you get summonsed, arrive tidily dressed and present the case that no
    contract was entered into and hence no liability can be assumed.
    4. When you win the case (which you will), counter-sue them if they have any
    money and get everything you can. You can sue them for malicious



    (Claiming asylum in an attempt
    to escape paying his debts to
    Dougal and Florence)
    Zebedee, Jul 23, 2004
  7. No good deed goes unpunished.
    Charles Schuler, Jul 23, 2004
  8. Ron

    Doug Kanter Guest

    Considering the tripe people watch on television courtroom shows, there's a
    market for this kind of thing. :) Or, perhaps the Jerry Springer show.
    Doug Kanter, Jul 23, 2004
  9. Just deny you were even there - if you were taking the photos, you won't be
    in any of them!
    Gareth Tuckwell, Jul 23, 2004
  10. Ron

    Frank ess Guest

    Still waiting for someone to ask:

    "How bad must they be that the subjects didn't like even one?"

    Hard to believe.

    Frank ess
    Frank ess, Jul 23, 2004
  11. Ron

    Paul H. Guest

    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
    Paul H., Jul 23, 2004
  12. Ron

    Paul H. Guest

    I've always said, "I won't take pictures, but I'd be happy to be one of the
    clowns in the little car at intermission."
    Paul H., Jul 23, 2004
  13. Ron

    PTRAVEL Guest

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

    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."
    There are exceptions -- see above.
    Consideration doesn't have to be money and, per common law, can be a "mere
    PTRAVEL, Jul 23, 2004
  14. Well done, young man! come on out and take a bow.

    Lotsa good earnest responses.

    And if it were true, you can both countersue and then sell the movie rights.
    John McWilliams, Jul 23, 2004
  15. Ron

    Mike Mc Guest

    Why don't you post the pics and we can have a 'competition' to see who can
    do the best job of digitally enhancing a pic. Then send them back to your
    'friend' with our compliments :)) I'm not very good with Elements but I
    bet I can make her look like a pig......
    Mike Mc, Jul 23, 2004
  16. 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.
    Charles Schuler, Jul 23, 2004
  17. Ron

    PTRAVEL Guest

    I assume this is directed to me. No, I can't provide an opinion based on
    common sense and common language, as neither are particularly relevant to
    law in general or this matter in specific.

    There are a number of legal considerations here, some of them quite
    technical. as I explained in another post, both promissory and equitable
    estoppel use the concept of detrimental reliance as a substitute for
    consideration. However, the most significant factor that mitigates against
    a likelihood of a lawsuit is the speculative nature of damages -- how do you
    quantify the harm?

    Note, please, that this is offered merely for general discussion, is not
    legal advice, nor is anyone here my client. No dispositive opinion can be
    provided based on the incomplete recital of facts by the OP.
    See above.
    I don't even know how to respond to this. If someone here was a client, I
    would explain the law, the potential liability and a recommended course of
    action. I can't and won't do that for non-clients.

    My purpose in posting was because in this thread, as in some many others, a
    lot of people jumped in with their "legal opinions," all of which were wrong
    or, at best, incomplete. Law, like medicine, is not a field in which anyone
    wants to rely on the opinion of non-experts.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 23, 2004
  18. Ron

    PTRAVEL Guest

    To Charles Schuler:

    See, this is why I posted. Nothing this poster wrote is correct.

    1. Contracts don't have to be in writing, i.e. they can be verbal.
    2. To be enforceable as a contract, money does not have to be involved.
    3. They can sue over a variety of species of detrimental reliance,
    including equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel.
    4. Though they might win (and it's impossible to tell based on the minimal
    factual recital of the OP), damages are highly speculative.
    5. I can think of scenarios that embrace the given facts that could, and
    almost certainly would, result in considerable liability for the OP, though
    these scenarios require additional factual predicates.;
    This is the only valid advice you've given. You don't know. A lawyer does.
    Please don't offer lay analyses.
    Yet another error. In virtually all jurisdictions, attorneys fees are not
    recoverable unless provided by contract or statute, neither of which are
    relevant to the current facts. Malicious prosecution liability requires far
    more than merely losing a lawsuit.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 23, 2004
  19. Ron

    PTRAVEL Guest

    Wrong again. As a matter of law, compensation for any action at law must be

    See above.
    PTRAVEL, Jul 23, 2004
  20. That's scary.

    I can't quantify harm unless it can be reduced to numbers, or at least
    represented by numbers.
    Granted. The OP is presenting his point of view.
    Good answer and I understand it.
    Science is the best of all fields because it ruthlessly weeds out the
    Charles Schuler, Jul 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.