Was I acting as agent? Who is right in this?

[Mr.Taxi Trix]

So true Martin. I saw Jenny the Juggler a few nights ago in Cambridge, and was remembering what I think of as pnet's heyday. We do need more fodder here.

Isabella, your reply is about as solid as it gets. I was doing the dishes, and thinking that my only sensible reply would have been

"Gee, Juggling365, you really gave me something to think about there. Thanks for taking the time to post that. Welcome to the community."

Then I rinsed them.

[wilallyn]

Your client, your game. He's either in or out. He agreed to $300.

All else is smokescreen. Lesson learnt. Thanks for the entertainment. I love reading email confrontations. We need to post more of this stuff.

Agreed on all counts...quite the edutainment value for this thread.

Keith...one word....contracts.

[davidkaye]

It took me awhile to figure out what was going on, so I figure that if I'm confused, the two of you are probably confused, too. He could well have assumed that either (1) you were passing the booking to him just for the heck of helping him out, or (2) you had already been paid a booking fee by the client.

I can't really fault Mike for his attitude, to be honest.

I'd say that in the future you need to state exactly what your fee is, or better yet, get the payment from the client, collect your fee, and pass the rest to the performer. That's really the bst way to do it.

[martin ewen]

If you are confused then it doesn't follow that anyone else is.
That's called personalization and projection. I only know these things because I've swum 50 thousand leagues into psychology as a matter of personal survival.

Your suggestions for the future are useful. However assuming assumptions others may have made in the face of the facts as they stand with a set fee being offered and accepted. A higher than set fee being cut and transferred and then a raft of distractive belligerence being used as not even a rationalzation of what is in effect theft but rather a tantrumesque smokescreen, while admirable at almost reviving a subject autopsied to a standstill, only actually adds the fact that you were confused until you could presume someone else was as well. Then you weren't as confused because you had invented company.

People who make honest mistakes in my experience don't over-react defensively as first option. They don't feel threatened. They are merely neutrally confused. They ask for clarification. If they start defending vigorously without first asking for any clarification then that is a 'tell'.

No It's cut and dried I'm afraid.
A negotiates gig for c+

a offers b c,
b gets c+,
b keeps c+,
a asks b for +,
b makes noises defining his rights to c+
a reminds b that his offer was only ever for c
b makes more noises to obscure mutually accepted initial transaction which was

a offers b c.

Humans, such transparent idiots, eventually such useful compost.

[About Faces]

I don't know. I'm impressed by Martin's eloquence. Yes, I am thankful that I do not hire this performer. However...

Words like tantrumesque aside, I'm neither surprised nor dismayed by Mike's misunderstanding of Leaf's agreement. Borrowing only the smallest words in Martin's post, both a and b agreed that a offered c to b; however, there is no evidence to me that there was a meeting of the minds as to what, precisely, constituted c. a obviously felt that c, the booking, included an agency fee plus the performer fee. b obviously felt that c constituted the entire fee, and did not plan on paying an agency fee until informed of the existence of one, after the engagement was complete and payment rendered. Many of you have argued that b was a thief or dishonest or, at the least very naive and confused about the nature of a clearly stated relationship. I don't know what was going on in b's mind, but I do know that if a had paperwork in place, defining the relationship, responsibilities, payouts and so on, then none of this would have happened.

I'm also not impressed that Leaf called the performer out publicly like this on a forum.

You want to collect an agent's fee without problems? Do a better job of being an agent.

[martin ewen]

My understanding leaves little room for ambiguity and does not allow for speculative defense.

a offered b, c
C was a concrete, articulated set amount.

any variance by B as to the amount of money accepted that varied from 'c' is not a's gymnastic problem to justify.

How could he 'be a better agent'? In this instance?

Should he perhaps add "and not a penny more!" each time he states the amount he is offering?

Your defense here is firstly an attempt to invent some potential misunderstanding and then attribute responsibility for that to the agent.

a offers b, c.

d is paid c and c keeps d because it's bigger than c and then tries to justify it after the event.

Happens a lot, which is why written contracts are superior.

That much has been learnt.

As to you being impressed by one thing and unimpressed by another.

Is that supposed to mean anything? Do you actually presume that what impresses you and what doesn't impress you by itself matters?

I'm impressed at your inflated delusive self image.

If you want for whatever reason to mitigate some issue it might be best if you simply didn't fuel it.

Your 'argument' is entirely speculative and your counterattack is baseless.

Yes Keith could have put his agreement in writing. However as a verbal contract in good faith it was not Keith who strayed outside the bounds of the agreement.

So in that the question remains, given your charge that Keith should have communicated better.

How? Specifically. Because to suggest someone does something 'better' without suggesting how to is, well I could settle for unimpressive but I'll go for 'unhelpful'


Are you saying that after offering 'C' he should have stated, 'and not a penny more'?

Or should he have explained perhaps the entire situation, inclusive of the agents fee arrangement?

I could see that being one option however I can also see the counter argument that it's none of 'B's business,

On a personal note, don't mind me, I just have a thing of rationally ripping arguments to shreds. I think it's a primitive reflex left over from when we used to have to kill to eat.