Family friend forced/conned in to buying photos?

[big soft moose]

Where has this credit agreement point come from..... I thought she had signed a direct debit?

an agreement to pay for something in installments by direct debit is a credit agreement - and if no such agreement exists she could cancel the DD without comeback.

 

[Splog]

Its a legal matter none of us are qualified to give the man advice, whats he gonna say to the studio that took the pics "i dont have to pay cause my buddies on talk photography said i dont"

The way i see it there are three choices pay what they asked for, pay a lawyer or the third option dont pay and they lawyer up in which case he's gonna need a lawyer anyway.

Nope! ... It's not a legal matter. It only becomes a legal matter once a court rule in the favour of the studio to reclaim their costs. If the girl is only seventeen then they are on seriously dodgy ground, whatever she told them. It's what is known as a scam.

 

[Splog]

an agreement to pay for something in installments by direct debit is a credit agreement - and if no such agreement exists she could cancel the DD without comeback.

Exxactly! and that's what I said earlier. I don't think instalments have been mentioned, perhaps she has signed up to pass her 18th birthday? .. She should cancel it now as it doesn't sound like any credit agreement has been entered into? .... She's seventeen years of age.

 

[Silvermuir]

Ok so if we mix all those posts together we get the option of dont pay and ignore them untill such time as the studio takes it up with the court ...which they might not do.

And if they do THEN get a lawyer.

Sounds like a plan to me

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It's what is known as a scam.

Without knowing the full facts you can't assume that it's a scam, from my reading of the 'facts' that the op has presented his friend is at least as much to blame as the studio, if not more so.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

She has a 7 day cooling off period anyway.... just cancel the DD and sod em!

From the Consumer Credit Act....


Cooling off and your right to cancel

You will benefit from a cooling off period if the credit agreement was made in one of the following ways:

For agreements signed away from the creditor’s normal business premises – i.e. at your home, place of work or at an exhibition stand
For agreements made at a distance (this also includes banking, insurance, pensions and investments)
For financial products and services marketed by an intermediary or broker (even where this is face to face)

 

[Splog]

Without knowing the full facts you can't assume that it's a scam, from my reading of the 'facts' that the op has presented his friend is at least as much to blame as the studio, if not more so.

Perhaps! ... but it doesn't changed the point that she is under age and therefore the studio is on seriously dodgy ground.

I bet they offered a full make over too! ...

 

[Splog]

From the Consumer Credit Act....


Cooling off and your right to cancel

You will benefit from a cooling off period if the credit agreement was made in one of the following ways:

For agreements signed away from the creditor’s normal business premises – i.e. at your home, place of work or at an exhibition stand
For agreements made at a distance (this also includes banking, insurance, pensions and investments)
For financial products and services marketed by an intermediary or broker (even where this is face to face)

Add to that a photographic studio....

 

[Silvermuir]

Perhaps! ... but it doesn't changed the point that she is under age and therefore the studio is on seriously dodgy ground.

I bet they offered a full make over too! ...

You make them sound like an evil enterprise praying on kids, again we dont have all the info on the company and their protocalls or the specifics of what happened...did she give them a fake ID, i bought beer when i was 17 with a fake ID all the time back in the day.

You may be right for all i know but its more likely that a large company that takes on a lot of clients one or two under agers are gonna fall through the cracks.

If it turns out they are infact scamming people then i hope they get what they deserve but you seem awfully quick to form a linch mob.

 

[realspeed]

There seems to be no mention of her receiving a copy of the contract or receipt for payment made. In the first instant contracts often have holes in them you can drive a horse and cart through and she should submit her copy of the contract to a solicitor to examine. If money changes hands it is a legal requirment to give a receipt if one is asked for, even if only buying a newspaper.

Depending on how much they are asking for the pictures will dictate if getting legal representation is worth it ,or putting it down to part of a learning curve and not being caught out again

Realspeed

 

[Splog]

You make them sound like an evil enterprise praying on kids, again we dont have all the info on the company and their protocalls or the specifics of what happened...did she give them a fake ID, i bought beer when i was 17 with a fake ID all the time back in the day.

You may be right for all i know but its more likely that a large company that takes on a lot of clients one or two under agers are gonna fall through the cracks.

If it turns out they are infact scamming people then i hope they get what they deserve but you seem awfully quick to form a linch mob.

Not at all....... I comment on what the OP said :shrug: If she's seventeen then that is fact!..... Are you really so naive to think that large companies that take on many customers don't twist or break the law to make money?

 

[Splog]

There seems to be no mention of her receiving a copy of the contract or receipt for payment made. In the first instant contracts often have holes in them you can drive a horse and cart through and she should submit her copy of the contract to a solicitor to examine. If money changes hands it is a legal requirment to give a receipt if one is asked for, even if only buying a newspaper.

Depending on how much they are asking for the pictures will dictate if getting legal representation is worth it ,or putting it down to part of a learning curve and not being caught out again

Realspeed

I find it incredibly sad that people really need to think they need to employ a lawyer to go to court! The law is actually quite simple, from what the OP said, she is seventeen and under the age of contractual obligation and with no mention of a guarantor....... It's a scam, she fell for it and was stupid and so was the studio! :shrug:

 

[Silvermuir]

Not at all....... I comment on what the OP said :shrug: If she's seventeen then that is fact!..... Are you really so naive to think that large companies that take on many customers don't twist or break the law to make money?

Well if they have twisted or broken the law he has nothing to worry about just dont pay them.

Am i so naive? ...I'm just a regular self employed camera op ,i'll leave all the conspiracy theories to the guys with the blogs and the superman T shirts, i have other things to worry about

 

[Splog]

Well if they have twisted or broken the law he has nothing to worry about just dont pay them.

Am i so naive? ...I'm just a regular self employed camera op ,i'll leave all the conspiracy theories to the guys with the blogs and the superman T shirts, i have other things to worry about

Don't pay them, is all I have said! ..... Not sure what you mean about blogs and T shirts though

 

[dudefish]

Not any mention of how she came to be there in the first place?
I once knew of someone who entered a comp in a local paper to win a shoot at a studio..... She submitted a photo of herself an surprise, surprise, she won. It was pretty much the same, alcohol raunchy, contract....etc.
It was a huge scam! Everyone who entered won, everyone signed, but the studio wasn't their 6 months down the line.

They will shoot up to 100 *** per day averaging around £ 2-400 per contract, and then just disappear.
Thing is, if you refuse to pay and it is a scam, they will get pretty nasty, remember she gave an address.

At the end of the day, she is under age and they cant force her to pay, but they will try, and these *** if it is a scam really don't give up easily. They will expect that you can't get the law involved as it is not a criminal matter (as they believe they have done nothing illegal) immoral yes but illegal no!
That is until they fed alcohol to a minor.

They will expect that you can't prove this, which I expect is the case, but they will not take it far enough for that as they know a court would see right through their scam even if it may not be strictly illegal.

Don't pay, and don't be pressured or bullied. They will not overstep the mark in order to make it a criminal offence , even if it starts to sound as if they might.

 

[straycat]

She has a 7 day cooling off period anyway.... just cancel the DD and sod em!

Yes that's what to do

 

[HoppyUK]

I haven't read the whole thread so fogive me if this has already been said.

She is under 18 so can't sign a contract (without parent/guardian etc). It doesn't matter if she lied, that doesn't change the law.

It's the studio that has the problem, not the girl. She was foolish but under age so not responsible. They were not, and are.

Call them, cancel everything, everyone move on. If the studio doesn't want to (if they're really really stupid, again) leave it with them. If it goes anywhere, it will rebound on them badly.

Edit: This is a kinda separate issue, but you should find out from the girl exactly what kind of risque images they are, before playing hard ball. If she was very drunk and totally stupid, the law might say one thing but possession of dodgy photos in the wrong hands is potentially another.

 

[KIPAX]

From a parents perspective, I would go to the studio and talk over the situation, explaining fully that my daughter was only 17

Seriously?... No mates? no baseball bat? nothing... just talk?

I have two grown up daughters and I ahve never been called upon to protect them in any real life situations... I would like to think I would have taken a large chunk of wood or something sharp to such a meeting

 

[gramps]

I would like to think I would have taken a large chunk of wood or something sharp to such a meeting

I seriously hope that you are just over-tired!

 

[Iris]

Seriously?... No mates? no baseball bat? nothing... just talk?

I have two grown up daughters and I ahve never been called upon to protect them in any real life situations... I would like to think I would have taken a large chunk of wood or something sharp to such a meeting

In the first instance, definitely. If this isn't a scam it can be sorted out in a few minutes and alleviate a lot of stress and worry painlessly. If it is a scam, you will have enough information to take to the police.

I'm also along the lines of thinking she signed some sort of credit agreement - goods or services provided up front with a repayment plan put in place.

Also, are the shots risqué or "glamourous"?

 

[DannyDMR]

I would go to the studio and talk it over with them, plain and simple, Lawyers, Courts, Ignoring people... Why?

I would find out there side of the story for a start, but i would also point out that any "contract, Direct Debit or anything else that had been setup is now cancelled. I would then point out that my Daughter is 17 and she was given alcohol on these premises. If i didn't like there response i would take note that they got my 17 year old not very bright and easily led daughter drunk and then took inappropriate photos of her without my consent.

Thats where Kipax large chunk of wood or something sharp would come into play

 

[odd jim]

Not read all the replies on this so apologies if it's already been said but;

There was no legally binding contract in the first place. The fact that one of the terms was that she had to be 18 or over, and she wasn't voids the contract even if it has been signed. She can stop the direct debits and she is in no breach, and they can't chase her for it.

A call from her parents to the studio explaining the situation should solve it amicably.

 

[KIPAX]

I seriously hope that you are just over-tired!

How many smilies does it need before the penny drops ? seriously?

 

[andya700]

As a 17 year old, she would be below the age at which she could enter into any form of contract without a supervising adult present.

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index...rs/young_people_money_and_consumer_rights.htm

She should cancel the Direct Debit immediately because it is not valid. The agency sounds a bit dodgy to say the least, and it may be worth informing trading standards of their practices, particularly the use of alcohol in coercing clients, and the lack of checks to ensure that they are not dealing with unsupervised minors (although the girl presumably knew full well what she was doing in this case).

 

[MartynK]

Minors do have a capacity to enter into contracts without a parent or guardian's support, but these are mostly voidable and unenforceable. There are some exceptions - mainly where necessaries and the minor's own benefit are involved - but this is complicated, and doesn't apply in this situation.

Based on the facts - as set out by the OP - the girl is just worried about her liability for the debt. That shouldn't present any problems. She can simply cancel the debit order and advise the studio that she is a minor and is repudiating the contract. They can probably insist that she returns any benefits she has already received, such as prints, and that should be an end to it.

The "raunchy" photographs mentioned by the OP are another matter. It's an offence to take or distribute indecent photographs of a person under 18, and it doesn't matter who gave consent, because no-one has the authority to do so. The law doesn't define indecent, and it would be up to a court to decide, if necessary. This could be a can or worms.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

It's interesting that so many photographers are taking the side of the girl here, if it was a 25 year old, or a male that was trying to get out of paying, or if they were the photographer, I wonder how any would still be taking the same stance?

 

[MartynK]

It's interesting that so many photographers are taking the side of the girl here, if it was a 25 year old, or a male that was trying to get out of paying, or if they were the photographer, I wonder how any would still be taking the same stance?

I know what you mean, but this is about the legal position - which is gender neutral - rather than any moral obligations. That's why I said that minors can indeed contract - and stand by their commitments - but cannot generally be held to them. Any TP members finding themselves in the studio's position would be in the same situation.

FWIW, and based on the limited information we were given, I do think the girl acted irresponsibly, but I suppose a lot of us have done stupid things. I know I have.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I know what you mean, but this is about the legal position

In reality we don't know what the legal position is because we're not privy to all the facts, if the studio have plied some poor girl with alcohol and induced her to pose for 'raunchy' pictures against her will then her parents should be getting the police involved.

If, on the other hand, it's (as it sounds to me) just like someone trying to get out of paying for something that they really shouldn't have done in the first place............

 

[AboutLee]

Just to be clear.

1. No fake ID was involved, she used her REAL home address and REAL name.
2. Her mum lives in Egypt, and her dads a **** head. No parent was with her at the studio.
3. Yes i already know she shouldn't of lied why do people keep repeating them selfs? Shes not reading this i am.
4. The photo shoot was on friday and she set up a direct debit to pay this £40 fee before the shoot.
5. They were not any underwear shots etc..just reviling pictures like short dresses, low cut tops and poses. From the pictures they look raunchy.
6. Thanks to tho's who have give advice i don't see why people say "Lawyer Up" when she don't plan to take them to court over anything.
7. She was quoted a fee of around £1000 for said photos. And asked to pay £40 a month until paid off.
8. She currently has "Preview/Sample" photos off the studio. So she don't have the pictures.

From what ive saw and found out today from other people the company are 'barstewards' for tricking people in to paying instalments. They also should of followed through the ID thing as she did not show them any so therefore shouldn't of let her in. There web site states no one under 18 will be allowed in. I have also offered to go with her to sort these stuff out, but shes scared to go.

P.s its not the fact she "don't" want them its the fact she got pressured in to buying them. Shes the sort of girl who can't say no.

 

[odd jim]

I'm suspicious as to why they got her to sign the contract/agreement **after** the shoot and not before?

But like I said, there is no legally binding contract in place as the contract was broken before it was even signed. All she has to is cancel the direct debits.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

So it's not the alcohol or the 'raunchy' pics, or even the fact that she is underage (given that she obviously knew they only offered this service to over 18s) that are the issue, nor is it that she doesn't want the images.


It's just that she doesn't want to pay for them.

 

[MartynK]

In reality we don't know what the legal position is because we're not privy to all the facts, if the studio have plied some poor girl with alcohol and induced her to pose for 'raunchy' pictures against her will then her parents should be getting the police involved.

If, on the other hand, it's (as it sounds to me) just like someone trying to get out of paying for something that they really shouldn't have done in the first place............

These are separate issues. Legally, she's a minor and can't be held to the contract. We can agree or disagree about the merits of this, but that's the law.

 

[MartynK]

But like I said, there is no legally binding contract in place as the contract was broken before it was even signed. All she has to is cancel the direct debits.

Not so, the contract was voidable - not void ab initio - and unenforceable.

 

[big soft moose]

Not so, the contract was voidable - not void ab initio - and unenforceable.

true but thats a purely semantic difference - a contract which is voidable by definition isnt legally binding so jims point remains - cancel the DD and forget the whole thing

 

[tiler65]

My personal stance would be for the OP to contact the 'Studio' and sort out the differences there instead of creating a media frenzy of ill informed or uneducated guess work from our very own Talkphotography 'Simpsons' mob.

 

[MartynK]

true but thats a purely semantic difference - a contract which is voidable by definition isnt legally binding so jims point remains - cancel the DD and forget the whole thing

No, it's not semantics. There's a significant difference. A contract that is void ab initio is a nullity, it never existed in the eyes of the law. One signed under duress might fall into this category. A voidable contract is valid until avoided by one of the parties.

 

[onomatopoeia]

These are separate issues. Legally, she's a minor and can't be held to the contract. We can agree or disagree about the merits of this, but that's the law.

Although, in Scotland she could marry without any parents / guardians even knowing about it. Also the law.

 

[Sparkles33]

I agree with those who say just cancel the direct debits. Hope things work out for the best.

 

[MartynK]

Although, in Scotland she could marry without any parents / guardians even knowing about it. Also the law.

Yeah, I know. I live in Scotland too. This came up a while ago, in a discussion about the law relating to indecent photographs of young people under 18. You can marry at 16 in Scotland without consent, or in England with consent, or just go ahead and have a casual sexual relationship and kids, without breaking any laws at all, but you can't consent to indecent photographs. I'm not trying to justify the law at all, it's frequently "a ass".

 

[elphesadente]

My personal stance would be for the OP to contact the 'Studio' and sort out the differences there instead of creating a media frenzy of ill informed or uneducated guess work from our very own Talkphotography 'Simpsons' mob.

This.

Can't believe this thread is still going?! She is / was a minor. Contract never existed, alcohol / duress or not!