I have kind of a three part question. I'm going to give a little back story before I ask my questions so bare with me. I am recently being threatened with a small claims lawsuit by a company that I was supposed to do business with. I manage musicians in the New Jersey area and a company from California emailed me about a chance to do a music tour I was a little skeptical because I never heard of the company before I emailed him back and asked him for some history on his company and he told me that he has been in the business for 15 years and that they do good work and have an A rating on bbb he sent me links to his website and things of that nature but he also stated that there was some bad stuff about his company online because of a email breach that happened some years ago with a women pretending to work with him so I respected that he was honest with me or atleast I thought he was. I asked him how much was his services and he didn't directly tell me he stated that it depends on how many shows you do (if you are familiar with how a music tour works) and he told me to pick some cities from a list he gave me and that he would email me a contract. I give him the list of cities and he sends me this contact I read through it and at the same time I'm doing as much research as I can online about his company and it's so so a little good and a little bad but because he was open and honest and I thought he was telling the truth supposedly and had a A grade on bbb it decided to sign the contract I read through the contract and there are three clauses that are kind of wierd to me the first clause is my name agrees to pay x amount of dollars to this company on this date if the payment is not received within three days of this date the contract is terminated without any notice of default of termination. Another clause states that if I for any reason cancel the contract I would have to pay $320 and have it sent with in 48 hours of cancellation. Another clause that sticks out to me is that if we were to have legal issues we would have to go to court in his county which is all the way in California. When it came time to pay there were things that weren't adding up I asked him how do I make a payment because I usually use PayPal, Square cash or certified check he told me I had two options I could send it through western union or wire it to him. When he told me that I started to get sceptical because I never heard of a business sending money through that way unless it was a scam or something but I didn't know what to do because I had already signed a contract with him so I attempted to send the money through western union online and a message came up saying that for security reasons they could not send the money through western union online so I gave them a call and they suggested me go to an actual location and see if they can help me. At this point I really started to question things so I did a little more research and I found that he was taking people's money and coming up with excuses to why he couldn't fulfill his duties and that they couldn't get a refund and this was from more then one person. And they all had the same story and when they asked for a remedy to the situation he still didn't respond. So at this point if i send him this money I feel like the same thing is going to happen to me and to top that off I go to bbb website directly to check for his business and the rating is a NR which means there is not enough information on the business or the business is up for review. I reach out to him and address my concerns with him and he tells me that we been in the business for 15 years and we have never had a problem with people paying and that some one is pretending to be his company to take people's money. I then tell him that the contract is technically terminated due to the first clause that I mentioned I never paid him being as though we were disputing an issue through email and the contract should be terminated he then states that because I terminated the contract I should get ready to go to small claims court and pay him $320 if I don't send it to him in 48 hours. My questions Is that considered a breach of contract with someone if they are doing bad business and if you have two clauses that contradict each other and stated that the contract terminates itself if a payment is not made within a certain amount of time and the other clause is if I terminate the contract then I own him money and have to pay it in 48 hours and also in the contract it states that if in the event we have to go to court we would have to go to a small claims court in California which I live all the way in New Jersey and I know when it comes to small claims court sometimes it's hard to sue out of state due to jurisdiction would I have to travel all the way to California for court? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
Just whom or what the blazes is "
it" in "
it decided to sign the contract"?
You've thrown in every meaningless detail (except the kitchen sink and proper punctuation) and yet slur over whether you actually signed and returned the stupid so-called contract as if it was of minimal significance!!
Also one would be off of their rocker to contemplate traveling from on end of the country to the other to defend against a lawsuit over $320!
Anyway don't sweat it. Just ignore it. Whether this outfit is legitimate or not it isn't going to sue you in California or New Jersey. Not only because it wouldn't be it economically feasible but because the so-called contract is not enforceable. (At least in so far as the information you have provided.) WHY? Because:
1)
The purported agreement lacks the necessary element of certainty.
Here I am referring to the fact that the fee or charges for the outfit's services are undefined. "
I asked him how much was his services and he didn't directly tell me . .. " And you haven't alluded to anything in the written document that defines such fees or charges.
Also, as you have mentioned there appears to an inconsistency and ambiguity on the question of remedies in the event of your default. In one instance it speaks of having the sole remedy of termination. And in another an assessment of liquid damages in the even of default.
But the question looms - your default in WHAT? Which leads to my next point
2)
The document appears to lack mutuality of obligation or quid pro quo.
Where has this "company" committed to render any services for and on your behalf? Other than the initial payment of "X" what committals does it contain on your part. None revealed here.
But I wouldn't get too wrapped up in legal niceties. I think that the contract is purposely vague because the entire program is a sham designed to find suckers willing to fork over the $320. And they have never attempted to enforce it or intend to.
It is much simpler to find another sap. (And I don't mean present company excepted.)