Ask HN: Client wants contract enforcement in their state. Red flag?
Hi guys,
I'm in the negotiation stages with a freelance client for a sizable job. I presented a contract to them in which one of the terms is that the agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California (my state). They asked me to make a few changes in the contract, one of them being changing the state where the agreement is enforced to Florida, which is the state where they are and their new company is incorporated. I'm not a lawyer and don't think it's worth paying one to figure this out (I'd rather walk away at this point). Do you think this is a red flag? Or is it customary to ask for this? Do I have to go to Florida if there's any sort of dispute?
Thanks!
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 29.9 ms ] threadIf you don't have the resources to get legal advice I would walk away. Not worth the trouble.
> If you don't have the resources to get legal advice I would walk away
If there is no way that you could afford to get a consultation for, don't know, 100-300 USD range?, then how much are you willing to risk in case you sign the contract and something bad happens?
I would guess that just flying from Cali to Florida would trump those 100-300 attorney fee, even if it's just flying to sign some paper and end the issue.
I would ask an attorney for their opinion. It's not worth the hassle though, and if this is an absolute sticking point for the client, it may end up being a red flag and time to walk away. A couple options you may have would be to agree to arbitration or mediation in lieu of court. Another option would be to require a "legal deposit" that would put an attorney in Florida on retainer for the length of the contract. The deposit would either be applied to a final invoice or refunded at the term of the contract. This would discourage them from doing something frivolous down the road hoping you won't travel to Florida to enforce the agreement.
Again though, I would talk with an attorney before proceeding.
Furthermore, you can also show past works, references, etc. to support that point and convey that you like to stand by your word. Writing a contract where you're not fully familiar with the laws of the state means it makes it harder to deliver the work and experience you are known for.
When they say they want to amend the contract, what they are really saying is that they feel uncertain about certain things and feel there's a higher level of risk.
And at the very end of the day if they still insist on the changes, tell them you're willing to do that and explain to them that you will need to change the quote because of the extra legal fees.
Source: years of working with clients and making them happy
My gut is that it's a red flag. Partly because your intuition is that it might be one and you're ready to walk away. Partly because moving the venue to Florida signals that the potential client (they're not an actual client until they write you a check) is more concerned with you enforcing the terms of the contract against them [a Florida venue is an impediment] versus a concern about having to enforce a contract against you [a Florida venue is an impediment]. To put it another way, a Florida venue hedges their non-payment over their enforcement. It's a bet that it's more likely they won't perform than you.
My experience is that people are able to live with not paying because they give warnings up front. That's why I like retainers. If a potential client balks over paying a retainer, then the odds are higher they will balk over paying an invoice. Anyway, there's only two reasons that a client would balk over paying a retainer: they don't trust me in which case I don't want them as a client; or they don't have the money in which case I don't want them as a client.
Good luck.
You're both in different states. Each of you want litigation/contracts resolved in your own states. One of you must budge. How's this a red flag?