Paul Plutae, Are You Lawyer ?
No, just a surveyor.
What Steve said.
I was so shocked to read this I couldn't figure out what to say. You returned the check? Sorry, but "no comprende". I hope you wind up getting paid, if you don't you will lose some sleep thinking about this...
> I hope you wind up getting paid, if you don't you will lose some sleep thinking about this...
I'll get paid and I will never lose sleep over money like this.
What would you do? _ Snoop
Sorry - I am on the rag this morning.
You are right - i got my way, and you got yours.
What would you do? _ Snoop
No problem Snoop.. Rag time happens, hit me hard a few days ago
Snoop??
Did you replace your Avatar with Kent's pic?
What Steve said.
Any squabble over payment and who owes who what is now between Tom and Ralph. Don't arrange a meeting, don't mediate, don't insert yourself into their agreements or disagreements. Document payment for all parties and then stay out of the way.
I'm basically with Paul, and I don't think it's very complicated:
"Tom signs a contract with the surveyor and pays a 50% retainer." That's all I really need to know. Surveyor has no contract with Ralph and all the verbal stuff would not matter much if some dispute subsequently arose. Which can't be ruled out: "Ralph appears concerned that he should be paying." If Ralph is on board with paying half he can simply pay it to Tom.
I especially dislike the precedent that would be set by letting Tom amend the contract after the work has been done (by assigning Ralph half the debt). And in fact in Maine, given our board's requirement that such matters be handled via written confirmation, surveyor could have faced disciplinary action for letting Tom amend the contract verbally, i.e. if a ticked-off Ralph filed a complaint.
I would relax this approach if I knew both Tom and Ralph quite well and felt confident that contractual rigidity was unnecessary. But it sounds like they're already mildly at odds.
Overthinking Indeed
I would have to agree with Paul in PA (PiPA), Kent and others. You have no idea what is in the lease agreement between Tom and Ralph. As PiPA stated:
> The entire cost of improvements could have been a pass through cost according to the lease...
This is quite common in commercial development in Houston. Every developer wants to make the bank happy. The only way to do so is to prove to the bank that you will have enough cash flow to pay the interest on the construction loans. Pass throughs are great ways for a developer to generate cash flow. With good salesmanship and the right network, a developer can have a strip center completely pre-leased, with pass through costs accepted by all tenents before ground breaking. This almost guarantees that the bank will capitalize the project.
JBStahl had the right approach.
AS3
What would you do? - Steven
Paul - If you didn't feel right about accepting the payment from Ralph, why did you bring it up to him, just in idle conversation? I was wondering if you happened to be holding a machete or axe or some other potential weapon when you told him about Tom's statement that he'd pay half. 😉 <-That means I'm just kidding.
I quite often get payments on contracts from people other than the party that signed the contract. Like, a design/build firm I work with will hire me to do a topo and staking job and I get a check from the property owner. I don't send it back.
The contract for the survey was with Tom, it is he who assumed the obligation not Ralph. The second Tom told you that Ralph was going to pay half, I would have told Tom that, that was nice of Ralph but my contract is with you, check please. Does not matter what the lease says, that is between the parties of the lease and immaterial in this case. I am in Paul's corner on this, except I would not have said a word to Ralph and I would not have given him the drawings. Yes, I think Tom seems to be a bit shady but that is probably why Tom is the owner. Taking and returning the check along with releasing the drawings to Ralph might cost Paul that money, but Paul has the proper value system and even if he loses the 50%, he is displaying very good ethics and a very high value system that seems to be lacking in many today. Have to respect that.
jud
If it was a matter of having a problem getting paid, both Tom and Ralph pointing to the other as the responsible party, I agree, as far as I'm concerned as the contracted service provider, my contract is with Tom and he needs to ensure that I get paid.
That does not preclude someone else making payment. The fact that someone else makes payment does not automatically mean that you must have a contract in place with that person. CA has the written contract rule as well. So what? There have been times where I have had a contract with a landowner, and then later been issued a check by a lender, a real estate agent, a title company, or the client's attorney on behalf of the client. Nothing wrong with that.
I would have started by telling Tom that my contract is with him and that I expect payment from him. He can then collect whatever he feels someone else should pay from that someone else on his own. If I had not had the opportunity to speak with Tom about it, and Ralph paid, then I accept. It would appear at that point that Tom and Ralph had a payment agreement between them, apart from my contract with Tom, and Ralph is honoring that agreement. I will have been compensated for my work, and the work will have been performed according to contract. Done!
I may interpret a look on Ralph's face as confusion, but it might also be indigestion. If he did not express confusion, but instead willingly paid, then I assume he is honoring an agreement brought to my attention by Tom. If he expresses confusion or questions why he should pay, I don't demand it, but rather tell him that I expect to get my payment from Tom; he and Tom can work out the shared costs between them. But then, Ralph probably would not have heard this pay arrangement from me first.
Ethics?
Tom pays a 50% retainer. Surveyor completes survey. Ralph pays the remaining 50%. Does the contract stipulate all payments to the surveyor must come directly from Tom's hand?
Tom could have asked Ralph to pay Tom, and then Tom would in turn pay the surveyor, but he did not. Instead, he asked Ralph to pay the remaining 50% directly to the surveyor. Where is the ethical issue? Surly it cannot arise from a supposition by the surveyor that something had to be wrong because Ralph ( according the the surveyor, was from another country and seemed intimidated) "appeared concerned" when asked about payment for the remainder of the bill.
Since, when did it become unethical to accept two different forms of payment for one bill?
This may be a great example of making a mountain out of a molehill. If Ralph had not discussed with Tom, payment for half of the survey, prior to the survey being performed, then Ralph never would have signed the check, and ethically speaking, it is not the contractor's business to know what kind of arrangement or contract Ralph has with Tom.
Accepting payment and cashing the check from Ralph would not be unethical, immoral or otherwise out of bounds of a high value system at all.
AS3
What would you do? - Steven
> Paul - If you didn't feel right about accepting the payment from Ralph, why did you bring it up to him, just in idle conversation?
Well, it was after he handed me the check that I got these signals that he was very uncomfortable about the whole thing so we started to talk about it.
I thought when Tom said that Raplh would pay half that Ralph and Tom had an agreeable arrangement so that is why I approached Raplh in the first place.
Overthinking Indeed - Adam hahah
> I would have to agree with Paul in PA (PiPA), Kent and others.
Haha Adam..Kent never posted. Snoop hijacked his avater ROFL
Tres
Not saying that I haven't accepted payment from more than one person for a job; however, when that is the case, both parties and I have conversed about it and signed something to that effect, prior to beginning the job.
Otherwise, I'm invoicing someone who I haven't spoken with, kinda like you billing me for pizza you ate the other night. I don't feel comfortable with that.
What would you do?- Cee Gee
> If Ralph is on board with paying half he can simply pay it to Tom.
That's pretty close to what I told Tom this morning.
What would you do?- Jud
> I would not have given him the drawings.
Raplh was quite the gentleman and handed me the drawings back Jud.
