A tradesperson does more work than what is on the contract and is asking to be paid for it I have a fixed price contract that has a long list of tasks to be performed but is somewhat vague on the details. The contractor said a number of times &quot;well we could do this&quot; and the this was not on the list. No mention was made of additional payment for it. My typical response was &quot;are you sure about that - there's already a lot to do&quot;. In some cases I just said &quot;yes that sounds good&quot;. The contractor has become surly because the amount of time being spent is well greater than the amount he had anticipated. (Note: I have not &quot;held&quot; him to the contract - if he wants to leave he can). He has now come forward saying he will put a lien on the house for items that are not in the original list. Will he win a judgment on this? My problems with this: he came to me saying he would give me a bargain price. I was not even planning to do many parts of the work: he offered to do them at a low total price and I accepted I would not likely have agreed to the &quot;extra&quot; things if I had known there would be additional charges In any case I would most certainly not agree to the kinds of prices that he is now presenting: I could get lower prices from other tradespersons. Even given all that I would not likely have agreed to have the additional work done before the items on the original list were completed If I were to have these additional work items done then I have been denied the opportunity to do a bidding/negotation/ terms / agreement cycle. I never signed anything to pay a dime over the contract amount, or even verbally agreed to additional costs. Instead I frequently harped on my limited expenses ability and the fact that labor and materials were well over the estimates. My take on this is his claim will not fly - there is no definitive evidence that I approved additional compensation for the additional items he did. At worst case the additional items would be costed out on a similar basis to the items in the original list. That amount of money I can handle- it is an order of magnitude less than the costs he is trying to impose now. Having said all that - having a lien on the home is a real headache. My question would be along the lines of: would I be likely correct in the following most likely no judgement since lacking an indicator that I were expected to pay more if a judgment were allowed its magnitude should be aligned with the pricing of the original contract - not market rate having a lien filed will in any case be a long arduous headache of a process to deal with even though the claim would have limited or little merit Update Apparently there is some chance a contractor might be able to get market rate for additional work even though the existing work was at a much lower rate. That is concerning. So here is more info. There were numerous discussions that my finances were constrained, that he was providing a cut-rate service to help out, and that i needed to control any additional expenses. We came to a conclusion some time in that any new work would require a change order. He agreed in a text message and verbally that I had met any existing payments by virtue of retroactively reimbursing some fuel costs. He is now reneging on that as well as the spirit of the deal. Epilogue I made a settlement with this huckster. I would have likely won on merits against a lien - but the amount of the settlement was low enough to justify expediting the whole thing. It is a matter of having trusted too much and trusting the wrong person. There is a big cost associated with that class of mistakes. Now the day after a very explicit &quot;final&quot; settlement - in which there is specific verbage that no further charges can be levied - this guy insists on adding a surcharge to materials that were already paid for or he won't deliver them. I just denied denied denied. &quot;No more addition charges&quot;. The point here is: this is a guy just out to get as much as he can. Justice is NOT being served: just be careful to detect these folks before doing business with them!
My question would be along the lines of: would I be likely correct in the following most likely no judgement since lacking an indicator that I were expected to pay more This might happen but the outcome would be very uncertain. A contractor is entitled to be paid the contract rate for work within the scope of the contract, and also a contract rate (if stated) or the fair market value of the services rendered (if not stated) for work subsequently authorized by the property owner and work done with a mutual expectation that the contractor would be paid for it even if not expressly authorized by the property owner. The legal theory for payment when work is done without express authorization, but with a mutual expectation that the contractor will be paid is called &quot;unjust enrichment&quot;, &quot;quantum meruit&quot;, or an implied in fact contract. The existence of authorization would not generally have to be in writing, and a provision requiring additional work authorization to be in writing in the contract is not necessarily legally enforceable in all U.S. jurisdictions (e.g. it would be void in Colorado). There is likely to be disputed evidence concerning what was said and what the parties understood what was actually said to mean. This could easily go either way in litigation. To be clear, it isn't a clear slam dunk win for the contractor either. But neither side's arguments would be considered frivolous or groundless in the face of this kind of fact pattern as it is typically litigated by reasonably competent counsel. You would be particularly disadvantages by the fact that you would have had the ability to inspect the work being done and to have immediately ordered the contractor to stop doing additional work that wasn't authorized if you saw that the contractor had started to do that additional work. Failure to immediately object to the additional work being done without authorization could be viewed by a judge as a form of implied consent to the work. if a judgment were allowed its magnitude should be aligned with the pricing of the original contract - not market rate If the original contract was a fixed price contract and the original contract did not provide for another rate for additional work done beyond the original scope of the contract, the amount owed would be based upon the fair market rate, not the discounted fixed price rate. Construction contracts that are well drafted by lawyers usually contain a provision governing the rate of pay that is due in cases where there is an agreement, express or implied, to do additional work, and also try to clarify what process must be taken to approve additional work (although the process provisions don't always hold up well in court). Of course, fair market rate is something subject to reasonable disagreements and the fixed price for the original contract would be one piece of evidence among many that the fair market value rate for this particular contractor was lower than the average fair market value rate for all contractors doing work of this kind in this market (e.g. perhaps your contractor has less experience than average or lacks a particular kind of relevant training). having a lien filed will in any case be a long arduous headache of a process to deal with even though the claim would have limited or little merit Yes, it would be, and your evaluation of the claims as having little merit probably significantly understates your risk of liability. Even if the contractor does not ultimately prevail on the claim for the additional work, it is unlikely that the contractor would face any sanction for not doing so, and unless the contract has a broad enough provision to shift attorney fees in this dispute over additional charges as opposed to the original scope of the fixed fee contract work, each side would bear their own attorney fees in the litigation over the lien for the additional work. It is unlikely that a court would impose a groundless/frivolous litigation sanction upon the contractor or damages for slander of title in this fact pattern. For example, a settlement agreeing to pay for the additional work at a discounted rate commensurate with the rate implied by the fixed fee part of the contract would probably be preferable to having the house subjected to a lien and then litigating the case on the merits.
If it's not in the lease agreement, then you did not agree to it. Even in the absence of the law prohibiting the late fee, the landlord would not be able to impose it because it is not in the lease. It is of course up to you whether you want to test it. It may be more trouble than it is worth. Then again, it's probably not worth the landlord's trouble to begin eviction proceedings over a late fee. Paying late and refusing to pay the fee would probably sour your relationship with the landlord, which is usually something you want to avoid. If you do pay late at some point, you may want to point out to the landlord the relevant provision of Massachusetts law. The matter would probably end there: either the landlord doesn't know about it, or the landlord is hoping that you don't know about it. Pointing it out in a polite manner will inform the landlord of the law and that you are acquainted with the law. Unless the landlord is quite unreasonable, that should take care of it. Whether there is any law prohibiting landlords from announcing an intention to take a prohibited action is indeed a different question. Is there any legal reason for me to bring this up and get the landlord to formally acknowledge that they will not in fact charge illegal late fees? No. You have a contract with the landlord that already says you are going to move in. He cannot modify that contract simply by sending you a letter.
There is a reason these are commonly called &quot;TRAP&quot;s (Training Repayment Agreement Provision). These agreements don't just protect the employer from paying for training that an employee can use elsewhere. These agreements frequently act to &quot;trap&quot; the employee in difficult employment circumstances where the employer can demand long hours and excessive dedication in difficult jobs for little pay, knowing that if the employee tries to leave, they could face a substantial financial burden. These agreements are generally legal, provided they are executed in good faith. However, certain circumstances have been used to void the agreements. In particular: If the cost or value of the the training is vastly overstated, so the training actually provides minimal value to the employee, but has a disproportionately large repayment cost that only benefit the employer. If the term of the agreement is excessively long (typically, more than 1 year). Training is unlikely to be so valuable and specialized that the employee would need years to repay the benefits. (Certain exceptions apply, such as for advanced engineering work or specialized skills like airline pilots) If the &quot;training&quot; doesn't actually have much value; if the training is just company propaganda and policies, rather than job specific skills, repayment costs are unlikely to hold up in a dispute. If the employee already has demonstrated skills before the training, then forcing them into unnecessary training just for a TRAP contract is unlikely to be supported. For example, someone with years of skilled electrical design work probably cannot be forced to repay thousands of dollars of &quot;training&quot; for a few weeks of basic electrical refresher courses. Basically, if the training isn't valuable to the employee and the cost isn't reasonable for the training, the TRAP line can frequently be voided. Yet doing so almost always requires mediation or a suit, which are also expensive, time consuming, and have uncertain outcomes. Its best for a prospective employee to call out a TRAP provision as a red flag before accepting an offer, and avoid it if at all possible unless they truly believe they'll benefit from the training, intend to stay the full term, and understand the employer might use the cost as a way to expect more from them or hold back their professional advancement.
If two parties have a contract, where one party is required to do X in exchange for the other party doing Y, then the terms specified in that contract would determine what happens. You would have to see exactly what it says, especially if the other party has the option to not give you money. A contract might say "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X; if A elects not to make payment, notice must be given 60 days before X". Failing to give timely notice is thus breech of contract. However if the clause only says "A shall at his option give B $5,000 by date X", then there is no requirement for advance notice. And this assumes that there is a contract whereby both parties have some obligation to the other. A gift, on the other hand, carries no obligations on the giving party. There may be some social code to the effect that they should have told you by now, but failing to give advance notice is at most rude and certainly not legally actionable.
Yes. The formation of a contract requires (among other things) that the parties intend to be legally bound. Their sending the offer from a corporate email address shows this. You replying in the same way shows your intention. Signatures are optional. Consider, verbal contracts are binding; how do you sign those?
Variations of contracts must be consented to by all parties. This means that if the company sent your friend varied terms, it would have included means by which she would have consented - this may be by continuing to use a service. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract. You could try to charge the company PoS terminal storage fees, but it's highly unlikely to be enforceable if they don't agree to it. In theory if they are aware of the change and they accept them in some way then they are bound to the terms just as she would be, even if they later claimed that they were not aware of them. There is some precedent - in Russia - for this with a bank and it made the news some time ago. There's plenty of cases in which people who don't read EULAs or loan contracts thoroughly are still forced to honour their obligations to their creditors under them.
It depends How good is your (legal) English? For example, do you know the legal difference between "will", "shall" and "must"? Or, the difference between "employee", "subcontractor" and "worker"? Or the difference between "bankruptcy", "insolvency" and an "act of bankruptcy"? Contingency What are you going to put in your dispute resolution clause? Do you prefer mediation, arbitration or litigation? Will it be a one size fits all or will it be escalating? What happens if one of you dies? Or emigrates? Or divorces? Or is convicted of a crime? A financial crime? A violent crime? A sexual crime? Or what if such is just alleged but not proven? What happens if the company ceases to exist? Or is sued? Or is acquired by someone else? Or by one of you? Who is responsible for insuring the subject matter of the contract (if anyone)? To what value? If the person who should doesn't can the other person effect the insurance and claim the premium as a debt due and payable? Not all of these will be relevant to your contract. Familiarity How familiar are you with this sort of contract? Is this something you do all the time or is this a one off? For example, I am happy to enter a construction contract without legal advice because that's my business and has been for many years - I know my risks and how to manage them, inside and outside the contract. However, when I set up shareholder's agreements, wills and business continuation insurance with my partners, we went to a lawyer. What is your relationship with the other person i.e. how much do you know and trust them? Stakes If the contract is not very important (which is something that varies with the participants, for some people a million dollar contract is not important for others a $5 one is), so that if, by screwing up, you are OK if you lose everything you've staked then write it yourself. Alternatively, if the contract is vitally important to you and your heirs and assignees unto the 6th generation, I'd get a lawyer to write it - its pretty cheap insurance. How long the contract lasts will be a factor in this - a contract that exposes you to risk for 3 months is different than one that does so for 25 years. Basically, its a risk reward calculation. TL;DR Contracts only matter when relationships break down. If you reach for the contract then you can expect that the other party will be playing for keeps and that contract is your only defense against the worst they can do. If you are happy with your skills in mitigating against a cashed-up opponent who wants to see you go down no matter the cost then draft it yourself.
There is, in general, a rule that all matters connected with a single transaction or event should be included in a single legal case. Different jurisdictions apply this diffidently, and I haven't yet researched this in Maryland specifically. Also, if you agree to pay a part of what the landlord claims, you will quite likely be asked to sign a settlement agreement as part of the transaction. This is likely to include a release of all claims connected with your tenancy at the apartment. If it does, and you sign the agreement, you will be giving up any claim you might otherwise have because of the failure to properly notify you. You may want to consult a lawyer about this. A one-time consultation might not be very expensive. If you sued the landlord, you could do so in small claims court, where legal costs are significantly lower than in other courts.