Reputation: 5 Neutral
- Active Posts:
- 44(0.06 per day)
- Most Active In:
- In the Studio (18 posts)
- 11-April 11
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Apr 18 2013 04:11 PM
Posts I've Made
Posted 18 Apr 2013Don't delete the phone message. Check with your small claims court. File the claim to cover the work (labor and materials) that you had into them. Use the recording as evidence.... the person KNEW that they were being recorded...so it is admissibnle evidence. Clearly there is an admission there that there WAS an order........ verbakl agreement. Not as strong as a written one.... but you might get lucky.
At the least, annoy the crap out of them.
You might want to consult a lawyer. Oral contracts are great for litigators. Much better than written contracts, because there's so much more to argue about. Of course, this isn't so great for you when you see the bill.
This is not legal advice for your problem, but potters in the United States should seriously consider reading, and at least attempting to understand, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It's enacted by most U.S. states to be a uniform law of sales (each state has a version in its statute books). Article 2 of the U.C.C. has a provision that says: "a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker." - http://www.law.corne...cc/2/2-201.html Because of this provision, I daresay that anyone taking orders from more than $500 of pottery should consider a signed written sales contract or signed work order to be a prerequisite to the sale. Otherwise there is a real danger that your oral contract isn't worth the paper its written on.
Posted 7 Mar 2013There's this moment looking at the painting when it seems like the artist sat the family down with the stuff on table, which none of them have actually used before, and said - here, pick up the teacups and pretend to drink so I can get a picture of you. It's like a wacky candid shot.
See, the father didn't even have any tea poured in his cup because he prefers beer (or rum!); the mother is holding the too hot cup up by the foot and the edge, because she wants to hold it, but not drink it; and the child is like - what's this taste like? There's four cups; three people, three spoons, but only two saucers - and one of the saucers is already holding a cup.
Then there is this question - Who poured the tea? I can only conclude its not a servant: the utensils are on the table and the sugar bowl is open. A servant wouldn't have brought, or left, and empty cup on the table, right? Who would leave the cover off a sugar dish? That stuff is as expensive as the tea - maybe moreso.
And, really, I don't care how ornamental the dog, you want to have a dog near your fine china? Look there - your can see the shadow under the edge of that plate right next the to dog - the edge of the plate is over the edge of the table. Doggie might have gone in a lap, but we want to show off our fine clothes, and don't want them to get messed up by actually holding the dog. So dog was seen on the ground, but painted into the chair/stool?, because everyone is sitting, but we don't want to have to paint thier feet - the canvas would be too big.
About the sitting - wife has a chair with a back; father has a chair with a back, but daughter? No back. Was it because the color doesn't go with the dress? Were these three even sitting at the table together? Mother has lots of fine details in her dress and facial expression, like she sat several times, but father and daugher look like they came over to the studio once for a quick sketch and that was it.
It's a funny picture indeed.
Posted 14 Oct 2012i remember a cartoon showing an older man in a really fancy corner office in a high rise. he was talking to a young man and said " son, i am really glad that you have found yourself, but couldn't you have decided to be a potter before you finished law school?'
Ok, that just hits too close to home.
Posted 12 Sep 2012Im still a begginner by most professional standards, but I find my pots rarely have accidentally heavy bottoms; if I am careful, I trimmed the wieght. If I'm not (because I'm lazy) I leave the wieght alone. Two things have helped me reduce trimming - careful measurement of the bottom when I throw using a needle tool, before I pull the walls, and making sure that I remove buttresses (by indenting on base of the outside) when I start pulling up the walls. Both of my teachers in throwing have emphasized this second step, and when it is not done, I find it very difficult to pull the clay up into the body.
If I throw a heavy bottom, then I trim. I like footed pots, so, I actually prefer trimmed bowls aesthetically, which (when i am throwing without a specific project in mind) I throw on the hump most of the time anyway. What other tricks are there to eliminate trimming?
Posted 9 Sep 2012I would tend to decline to opine on this question - I do not specialize in this area of law.
If the employees were salaried, not hourly, none of this would have been an issue. Salaried employees are expected to get the job done, no matter how many hours it takes. I have worked several jobs where I put in 50-60 hour weeks without overtime because I was salaried.
I believe that the federal labor laws say that to be salaried, generally speaking, an employee's responsibilities have to include a significant supervisory role over other employees and be pretty managerial in scope. Could be wrong... but that is my understanding.
Depending on the role... it MIGHT fall under the "creative" exemption. But a lot would depend on the exact primary role of the job.
So a person who simply mixes clay or fires kilns or other such tasks would likely not qualify to be salaried.
Lawpots...... you reading this? Yes / no?
- Member Title:
- Advanced Member
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown