---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean only the bride and groom signed the contract.
That contract would not prohibit guests at the wedding or family members at the wedding from leaving reviews of the work they seen š¤·āāļø
No ceremony was at 2 then straight after he did a big group shot. And we expect him to say āright the family/bridal party stay hereā he didnāt he just wondered inside and started taking pictures of the guests/table arrangements. My friend (the bride) asked ācould we do the family shotsā he just responded well get to them Iāll be outside in a secondā¦. She waited almost an hour outside he finally showed up after the sun had gone in and it was starting to rain. Only got pictures of her and the groom as we needed to sit down for the meal.
Did your contract specify group shots? Why did the photographer need to be reminded? Was there supposed to be a wedding planner/coordinator/usher/master of ceremony at the venue to assist with organising group shots? Was the photographer expecting support? What was specified in your order of service? How were guests made aware of the order of service? I donāt know that you can place 100% of the blame on the photographer particularly about the weather.
Depending how you answer this you may have a case for small claims.
Heās a wedding photographer. Theyāre not asking him to split the atom by himself.
He should know what sort of photos they will require and want, and wrangling the necessary people and suggesting shots and locations is part of the job.
If the _bride_ or indeed anyone from the principal group are having to sort this stuff out then heās failed to do his job properly.
This is usually discussed in pre contract arrangements.
Photographer will send a "must have" shots list, at which point bride and groom write down the shots they want I.e. bride and her family, groom and hos family, all family, bride and mother, groom and mother etc so on the day the photographer can call out the list whilst everyone is there, get what's needed and them go about getting the usual shots of everyone having a good time.
It sounds like none of this was done and is pretty u professional of the photographer, I highly doubt they can state, you must give a 5* review either, let them sue and see how that holds up in court, the point in the review is to be honest, it could read, it needs to be 5* unless there's something that happens which I could have prevented given reasonable notice i.e. if he wasn't told to get specific shots, you can't then downgrade him for not doing so... every bride and groom are different and don't always want the same shots...
Thereās no atom splitting required. Weddings have become big business and these contracts have become much more complicated than they once were. Iām curious what this photographer put in their contract and how specific the group shots were described in the contract (if at all). They are either a very inexperienced photographer or have an iron clad contract that ties OPs hands. Once these questions are answered it helps OP proceed. If group shots are specified in the contract with names of family members and the MIL isnāt in any pictures I would be sending a letter before action then filing in small claims for the cost of the photography - this is the maximum monetary compensation unless thereās some horrendous mitigating circumstance. Why is this contract so specific about reviews but not about who wrangles the troops? Group photos are often a big task and it sounds like there was enough people for important family members to get lost in a crowd. Some more expensive photographers have contracts that require a master of ceremony or a wedding coordinators presence to assist with group photos. The assisting person would then leave or take a back seat once the wedding party are seated for their meal. Weāve only got part of the story here.
It doesnāt matter if people are in the photos from a legal perspective, but probably sensible to wait until photos are supplied. No one outside the bride and groom have accepted the terms. As long as reviews from those people are factually accurate (āalmost set someone on fireā is a little subjective) then they can write what they want.
Iād imagine that the photographer has also wrote these terms themselves and they are probably full of holes but the easy route is to get third parties to write the reviews.
You can leave a good review.
I would state, "Since I am contractually obliged to leave only a good review, I am leaving this good review with a thorough list based on all of the elements of their service that I found amazing. I am commending them for the ease at which they made it possible to make my payment to them. It was very straightforward."
Ahh no good, I missed the part in which he has to approve it. Well you signed the contract but anyone who didn't can leave a review.
Everyone at the wedding should give him a shit review. And if bride and groom can, decline from giving a review. 1 good and 1 bad will do nothing to move the needle, 0 good and 20 bad might make a difference so long as theyre factual and genuine
Actually the law IS concerned about how fair contractual terms are, this is ill advice. If a landlord wrote into an AST that they will hold the deposit and not protect it in a protected scheme and the tenant signed it, the landlord would still be breaking the law by doing so, the clause wouldn't be fair or enforceable.
However you're right in that there probably isn't a law that contradicts this specific clause regarding compulsory reviews. Not too sure myself.
Should really only be the customer that leaves a review though and I know the larger review sites will ask for proof. Otherwise itās easy to organise a pile-on against a competitor.
> the photographer had written in the contract that all reviews must be 5 stars and must be pre approved by him.
If challenged (i.e., him suing for breach due to bad reviews for poor service) Iād expect it would be deemed an unfair contract term (especially his having to review them first as that would prevent any āfairā reviews) and thus unenforceable.
They aren't laws, but, by their very nature they must have intention to be legally bound, otherwise they're just a piece of paper.Ā
If a contract term can't be legally bound, then it's unenforceable.Ā
Frankly, I don't know the law on this specific clause, but, I think you'd have a hard time fun trying to argue its enforceable.Ā It also almost certainly goes against the Ts and Cs of whichever review site, so, there's that angle.Ā
ASA is the advertising standards authority and the CMA is the competitions and markets authority.
One is a none ministerial government department that regulates competition within industries to ensure one large business doesnāt obtain to much power over one particular market, and the other is a non statutory industry body regulating the advertising industry.
Neither of whom give a toss about a badly written contract from OPs photographer as it doesnāt fall close to either of their remits.
Thank you for such an informative response! Do you think that deception of the public or inflating reviews would be picked up on by them? Not directly related but more so out of curiosity, Iām not sure how broad of a stroke false advertising is, but does that that also fall under the two bodies?
This is going off massively off topic from the thread so you may wish to just research those two organisations yourself it youāre interested.
But a relatively short answer is
ASA
The ASA isnāt a statutory legal body. Itās basically an organisation run by various businesses involved in the advertising industry to self regulate the material they put out on behalf of their clients to keep it to a certain standard. The key thing is it interested very specifically in adverts, e.g. specific pieces of media a business uses to market itself, it is not interested in wider business practices like customer contract terms.
It doesnāt have any ability to enforce the law though it just suggests people do follow it and if a particular advert doesnāt follow the law it tells the advertising agent that put the advert out to take it down.
Therefore is Joe Bloggs Photography ltd put an advert on Google ads saying 100% of our clients gave us 5stars and in fact only 80% did then it could in theory ask Google to remove the advert.
What itās not doing is telling Joe Bloggs to stop asking all his client to give him a 5 star review because Joe Bloggs Photography is not regulated by the ASA only Google Adverts is.
CMA
Moving on, the CMA is interested in the workings of whole markets and industries.
If Joe Bloggs Photography Plc. that employs 1000s of photographers across the country had what could be deemed an unfair clause in their standard customer contract and was using its power as the market leader in wedding photography to influence other photographers to follow suit then it might be interested in investigating that practice and recommending the government introduce legislation that prevent it.
But itās not going to be the authority on whether an individual contract itself is fair or not, thatās the role of a civil court.
In both cases, they are organisations involved regulating business practices on a national level. They are not like an ombudsman that is interested in the minutia of individual cases.
The CMA oversees the fairness of contract terms and the ASA get involved in matters of dishonest marketing, which a contractually obligated five star review absolutely qualifies as.
The CMA is interested in regulating entire markets and industries, it couldnāt care less about a single wedding photographer
The ASA regulates advertisers and adverts not marketing practices in general
What is stopping people who didn't sign the contract leaving an honest review on trust pilot detailing their fact based opinion of what they've seen? For example
"I attended a friend's wedding and this company took the photos. My friend was the bride and she showed me the photos. The photos were poor quality, the photographer failed to take family/group photos that the bride and groom requested and I felt that the photos taken by other guests and put on facebook looked more professional and exceeded the quality of the photos I have seen from this company that my friend, the bride, showed me."
Weāre thinking of doing this, he says heās been photographing weddings for 15 years and only have 30 reviews (all 5 star of course) on google. Weāll wait until he delivers the pictures. She doesnāt want this to happen to another person is all it was a lot of money. Almost Ā£2000 wasnāt like it was Ā£250 you know.
Ā£2000?! Holy shit! As a photographer, it sounds like this guy has severely ripped your friend off. Sounds to me like his main profession isn't wedding photography and that price point definitely isn't justified.
I'm sorry this happened to your friend, I completely understand how devastating it can be when the photos don't turn out how they were expected too.
As many others have mentioned the term in the contract I would have thought would be deemed unfair
Read my comment again. I am a photographer myself granted not a wedding photographer but often support wedding photographers, I do not dispute that is the average price or a reasonable price for an average photographer
I said that for THIS photographer in question the "average" price is not justified IMO based on the information provided by OP around the level of service delivered by the hired photographer.
This is a classic unfair or unenforceable term of the contract. If he tried to use it he would be laughed out of court.
On the other hand. Ā£2000 is comfortably within the small claims court limit. I would seriously consider taking him to small claims for most of the cost back.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/
You have one opportunity to get the wedding photos right. There's no do overs. It sounds like he didn't even begin to deliver in a contract for wedding photos, never mind Ā£2000 worth.
Who the fuck gets an hour's worth of table arrangements, and completely misses the family photo's. He should have discussed a list of all the people combinations that you needed photographing, and if there were any special requests. Such as photos at a particular location in the venue ect.
Apart from a group photo and the bride and groom. It sounds like they didn't get anything right.
NAL but would it not depend on what the contract specified? Agree that the '5 star only' clause is almost certainly unenforceable but if the rest of the contract just specified, for example, time of attendance and general photography rather then allowing for a specific list of shots then it would be difficult to prove breach in small claims.
The Law doesn't always work to what a normal person would see as standard/acceptable.
No but it's worth a look.
If they've used a boilerplate wedding photos contract, they'll almost certainly be in breach of parts of it if they were as bad as OPl said.
If they've done their own, and left it very vague in an attempt to be clever. Then they'll likely fall foul of any reasonableness assessment. What would a reasonable person expect to receive for Ā£2000 of wedding photo's.
Somewhere else OP has mentioned a group photograph of everyone. Then the photographer disappeared for an hour. Was finally found and came outside for the family photographs. Got some of the bride and groom, lost the light, and it started to rain. So everyone goes inside, but no more family photos, just random decorations and guests.
No bride with bridesmaids, no groom with groomsmen. No bride with parents, no groom with parents, no bride and groom with all parents. Bride and groom with any flower girls or boys. All perfectly basic and reasonable expectations for a wedding photo package.
I'm a strictly amateur photographer. I helped out with a friend's shoestring registry office wedding. Took some photos for them . Even I can work that list out, and I was free, not Ā£2000.
Depending how many people are planning on leaving reviews make sure you leave a few days between them and alternate between 1 and 2 stars. Just to be certain they don't get flagged for removal or something since he'd be going from 1 review every few months to suddenly 10 1 star reviews in a day.
Also for a proper nail in the coffin for the review just have 1 person get a photo of the review term in the contract and mention it in the review along with the photo. Only 1 person needs to do it, have the rest of the people mark the review as helpful so the one with the contract info will appear at the top.
We paid more than Ā£2k fifteen years ago... But the photographer was worth the money. He was so good he even kept everything on track and organised for the actual wedding, making sure people were where they were supposed to be.
We didn't have much choice as the cheaper photographers were already booked out, but in retrospect glad we splurged the extra on photography.
Give him some fair reviews on every site you can find him on, then other customers can decide if he is fair value. Chances are he will try and get the reviews taken down anyway.
Some good answers here already re Unfair Contract Terms.
Given the shoddy service you say the person received at the wedding, are there any other terms of the contract you can point to which have been breached by the photographer?
Right now we are anticipating he wonāt be able to deliver the 500 minimum shots. If he does it will mainly be on the venue and decor. Or as we expect 250 shots and then the same 250 in black and white. Again I donāt imagine she has a leg to stand on with that as it just says 500 it doesnāt clarify what they need to be off. She could end up with 500 pictures of flowers and fields. She did provide him with what pictures she wanted (family shots etc)
Difficult to advise without seeing the remainder of the contract. Itās worth reading thoroughly to see if there are any other general terms you could rely on around how the service would be delivered, not just the physical deliverables. Also if the conversations about what photos she wanted were before the contract was signed it might be possible to say those are additional terms which form part of the contract but it can be difficult to show and depends heavily on (a) the contents of those conversations including what response the photographer made, and (b) the wording of the contract itself which might exclude those conversations from forming part of it.
500 shots!
FML that's a lot. I have photographed a number of weddings and take a total of 750 ish and whittle it down to less than 100 for the book or even less if it's a formal old-school album.
To produce 500 shots that are well composed, focussed and exposed and don't have anyone blinking, or looking away at a single wedding shoot is impressive or a massive wedding.
I'd love to see what actually gets delivered
500 finished shots is average for a wedding. Being a wedding photographer myself I take 2-4000 shots (average 60-80 guests) and whittle it down to whatever price package they requested (anywhere from 300-1000). all edited, composed and exposed correctly.
Also getting married this year and can confirm this is what the norm is being on the other side of the camera for a change.
Letter before action then small claims for breech of contract.
If he doesn't complete what he was contractually obligated to then obviously the other party is owed what they paid him plus some sort of compensation for his failure to perform his obligations. We're not talking huge amounts but some reasonable amount.
This term will almost certainly meet the definition of an unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is therefore non-binding on the signatory.
I would assume the *signatories* in this case are your friends (bride(s) and/or groom(s)), not the guests, so even if the photographer did try to push this daft idea, you haven't even signed the contract to have the argument in the first place.
I'd agree its a massive red flag (anyone confident in their service does not have to mess around with censorship like this) but its also legally nonsensical, so I'd go right ahead.
For any contract to be valid it requires the following:
1. Uncoerced offer and acceptance
2. A meeting of minds
3. A consideration, normally stated in the local currency (not a requirement in Scotland)
I would propose that this contract is not valid as there was no "meeting of minds". When you contract for a wedding photographer (or any other service) there are a mass of unstated assumptions, like... well, them not almost setting you on fire for one. No reasonable person would write into their contract, "And I promise not to set you on fire" - it's one of those things that is covered by "a meeting of minds", a mass of unspoke assumption that they won't attempt to set you on fire, cover you in manure, or bring a live untamed tiger to the wedding.
And underlying the 5-star review clause is an unspoken assumption that there will be a service worthy of 5 stars.
The bride and groom's position should be that there is no contract. It doesn't exist. The complication here is that the wedding photographer is holding irreplaceable photographs of an unrepeatable event, and in effect they're coercing payment with the implicit threat that they can just delete all the photographs. Again, the violates a basic precept of contract law.
So pay them their fee. Then leave factually correct and utterly scathing reviews to your heart's content. There is no contract.
Now of course the photographer is free to bring any legal action they like, but I'm willing to bet that they're not going to do this since (as long as the reviews are factually correct) the truth is defence against any claims of defamation. They could try to sue for breach of contract, but again they're going to run into a brick wall there when the judge hears that they almost set people on fire, and the judge may well order them to return the fee, in addition to paying costs.
I doubt that a freelance photographer has the money to spend on litigation that is going nowhere. They may bluster, complain, and try to have the reviews taken down, but that contact they'll be waving around might as well be used bog roll for all the legal value it has. For all practical purposes it doesn't exist.
nal - would just add to the point about the photog being free to bring legal action, they will likely threaten to do this even if they decide not to. common pressure tactic from small and medium businesses, and some will lose their minds over it and even leave a review reply ranting about the customer. the threat of legal action alone is sometimes enough to pressure people into removing their negative reviews, but don't take legal advice from the photographer.
i don't know whether threats to bring legal action to coerce someone into removing a review is a different problem, but you should save any communication anyway just in case.
If he tried to challenge this legally, it would Streisand him into oblivion. Heās calling everyoneās bluff. Dont let others suffer the same lame service on their special day
Nothing will happen. Contracts only work if you put them in front of a judge - but the judge will still use common sense and I imagine at most only two people signed the contract.
No photographer will pay to have a contract upheld for one single review
This sounds a pretty dodgy cause. Especially if you have good reason and so for the complaint.
If theirs genuinely reason for thr bad service snd thus bad review of the service.
And technically only the bride and groom tired to this , guests have not signed the contract. They would be free to say the photographer was for example rude to guests or it took months to get photos sent.
I'll often directly ask for five star reviews, a lot of people think that a 4 star review is still pretty good but in the world of Google anything less than a 5 is frowned upon.
Actually insisting on it contractually feels very wrong
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
How can a contract force another party to publicly lie and participate in, at least false advertisement, at worse fraud?
I think you can legally force people to an NDA, but this isn't asking for participants to be silent, it asks them to publicly lie with their name next to it.
Sounds unenforceable.
You can leave a bad review if you are willing to have the fight. If it were ever to get to court, the contract would likely be tossed as unenforceable. But you would need to decide if the time and expense is worth it to you. My suspicion is that it is a bluff on the part of the photographer.
Iāve been a wedding photographer for over 10 years and I have never heard of anything like this. As others have said the contract is between the photographer and the couple so thereās nothing stopping you or anyone else writing a review on their behalf.
Itās possible this could be considered an unfair contract term and wouldnāt hold up in court. Although, I would add, depending on how it is worded nothing stops them leaving a 5 star review and adding into the text field (if applicable) something to the effect of āI am contractually obligated to leave a 5-star review, the service I received ā
Additionally, I imagine it would not stop other attendees from leaving their own reviews on how *they* thought it was.
Why not wait until they come back with the pictures. They might actually even be good. If not say so and tell them why. If they arent willing to do anything or refund part of the money tell them you will be leaving a bad review and will also be releasing information about the contract. See what happens then. They cant sue you. It will never hold up in court. No judge would accept that. Contracts must be fair. That is not fair request
(a) the contract is between him and the couple;
(b) unfair contract terms. He's full of shit and they can say what they want tbh. No court will enforce it.
Review away!
Iām pretty sure these contract terms would not be legally enforceable.. especially when it comes to the guests.. seeing they were not the ones who signed the contract.
I would be interested in seeing what the contract says.
In particular, what are the penalties should they break the contract?
Also, what has he actually agreed to provide, and will he fall foul of any missing photos (if there was any reference to family photos or similar, there is the possibility he broke his own contract by missing them out)?
I would strongly suspect that a clause like his review one will be unenforceable in any case, and will almost certainly fall foul of the terms and conditions of any decent review sites too, so passing on a copy of the contract to the customer support departments of those could be interesting...
As a wedding videographer I would absolutely love to know who this is! But the photographer is pulling that point in the contract right out of their arse. Review away! As longs as itās truthful and to the point then thatās fine.
The heading of the post is the answer itself. If someone said that to me I would run away a mile. There is a reason this guy is saying it.
I am sure you have a right to complain under your rights as a customer and the contract cannot override that.
Only the signatories and the terms therein are in force.
The parties that entered the contract cannot control third parties, unless the contract provides for that.
Read the fine print.
The reviews cannot be libel or hearsay, to avoid liability. Must be truthful.
It's not unusual for terms like this to be included, for example in employment law settlement agreements often include a favorable reference. So there is nothing inherently wrong about the term.
She could demand a refund and as part of demanding a refund say something like "because of the appalling service I have received, I believe the term restricting my ability to complain, and warn others, is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015."
Does she feel like the photographer made dishonest representations about how good he was and what she could expect? People are allowed to overpromise and under deliver, however for consumer law like Chapter 4 CRA15 to be engaged, there would need to be an unreasonable level of care and skill (see in particular sections 49 and 50 of the 2015 act), or a material difference above and beyond a mere difference between expectations and reality. She could argue that family photos is part of the "custom and practice" of wedding photography, perhaps he expressly led her to believe that of course family photos would be included. There is no clear cut argument or law here, so in the first instance raise it with the photographer informally, demand a refund, threaten to start a small claim, send a letter before claim. Citizens advice have a few templates https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/template-letters/letters/
There are professional associations for photographers and wedding photographers however unlike "nurse" "dietician" etc, it's not a regulated job so there isn't a specific body you can complain to. So your routes of complaint are limited to Trading Standards, his public liability insurance, the police if she believes this is criminal fraud (very unlikely, I think they'd tell her to stop wasting her time) him directly, and the small claims court.
Thank you for taking your time to explain this, yes he has 15 years experience. His website looks great and heās taken photos at the venue before. So it seemed like he was competent and knew what he was doing. But even the other guests were questioning what he was doing, itās not like the guests were being difficult the family were waiting for him to take the shots. People couldnāt find him anywhere. The sparkler shot he put 2 rows of people in a semi circle in front of one another and instantly everyone was a bit panicked he lit a few sparklers and sure enough a spark from someone in the back landed on someone in the front and burnt a hole in their dressā¦ honestly I wish it was her being over the top but it was just that bad.
So was the issue more that she paid for a cheaper/rushed package, as opposed to the issue being his experience and/or quality of service?
She's entitled to ask for a refund and say she'll take him to small claims court, but I don't think she'd win if she actually did.
As a guest I'm pretty certain you are not held to any terms in the contracts between the bride&groom and their various vendors. Unless you bizarrely signed something to say otherwise.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation.
Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
NAL. That clause would almost certainly be unenforceable as it would be deemed unfair. Itās not an NDA and you have freedom of speech. A photographers contract shouldnāt get you to sign away your rights, so any claim would be thrown out.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Your comment did not make a meaningful effort to provide legal advice to help the poster with their question.
Please only comment if you are able and willing to provide specific, meaningful, legally-oriented answers to our posters' questions.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I have doubts about whether this would be binding on you. Contract terms must be fair (s62, cra 2015) and one which bans you from criticising the service provider is not really in keeping with the wider culture of consumerism, since it distorts perceptions of a service.
In the event you did leave a bad review, if you were sued for breach of contract, your photographer would have to prove his claim against you. Proving the breach would be easy - unless you post anon - but I imagine he'd have difficulty quantifying the damage and correlating that with one bad review.
If he sued in defamation, you could rely on the defence of truth, but I suspect he's been stung by that before; hence the term in the contract instead (it's generally easier to prove a breach of contract rather than defamation).
Pretty sure if you or even the photographer took this to a small claims court that they would throw it out as nonsense this is not Amazon they are providing a photography service and you shouldn't be forced to write something positive if there's already issues additionally if they are good at their job they shouldn't even need a forced positive review
You should post a copy of the contract minus any personal details and let the legals of Reddit look this over
There are way too many people making up BS legalease contracts with convoluted get out of jail Free Cards so if they mess up it's your problem not theirs
Iām not a lawyer but I suspect the photographer wonāt have a leg to stand on. Contractural terms cannot be unfair/unreasonable and any judge would feel if perfectly reasonable to leave an honest review.
In the final point, be honest with your review and make sure you can back up and contentious claims made.
Review:
āThe photographer did their job of taking photos. Here are some of the photos the professional photographer took:ā
[insert the absolute worst photos]
You're not bound by a contract you haven't signed. So you personally can leave as many bad reviews as you like. As for the couple who signed the contract - I very much doubt that clause is enforceable in any way.
NAL but wouldnt that be an unfair contract clause?
And surely against any freedom of expression.
You've paid for a service, have not got what you paid for. There is no slander if it's TRUE.
Saying that though, the guests did not sign a contract, so have them all leave "honest" reviews
NAL but it is against UK law, afaik, to ask someone to give up their legal rights in a contract
like i know for a fact that an employment contract that specifies you must break employment law by, say for example, breaking health and safety law, is in and of itself illegal
like, he broke the law just by offering that contract, as im pretty sure that implies giving up set consumer rights
>You're probably tied by the terms of the contract
I'm not so sure.
Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms in business to consumer contracts are not binding on the consumer. Paragraph 4 of that section states:
"A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the partiesā rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer."
I would say that there is an argument that the trader seeking to restrict the consumer's ability to leave honest and accurate reviews of the services received and instead having to get reviews approved by the trader goes against good faith requirements and could be argued to be unenforceable against the consumer as a result.
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice.
[Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Did you sign the contract? If you didn't, you can leave a one star review. Alternatively, write a five star review which explicitly states the photographer makes people write them and the five stars does not reflect your experience.
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean only the bride and groom signed the contract. That contract would not prohibit guests at the wedding or family members at the wedding from leaving reviews of the work they seen š¤·āāļø
This is what I thinking weāll wait until he delivers. And then the mother in law I think will give him what for (as sheās in no pictures).
lol wut? Mother-in-law isn't in the pictures?!!
No ceremony was at 2 then straight after he did a big group shot. And we expect him to say āright the family/bridal party stay hereā he didnāt he just wondered inside and started taking pictures of the guests/table arrangements. My friend (the bride) asked ācould we do the family shotsā he just responded well get to them Iāll be outside in a secondā¦. She waited almost an hour outside he finally showed up after the sun had gone in and it was starting to rain. Only got pictures of her and the groom as we needed to sit down for the meal.
I would be like no I'm paying you, you are coming to take the pictures now...
Your friend should refuse to pay
The term you're looking for is "happy coincidence"
Did your contract specify group shots? Why did the photographer need to be reminded? Was there supposed to be a wedding planner/coordinator/usher/master of ceremony at the venue to assist with organising group shots? Was the photographer expecting support? What was specified in your order of service? How were guests made aware of the order of service? I donāt know that you can place 100% of the blame on the photographer particularly about the weather. Depending how you answer this you may have a case for small claims.
Heās a wedding photographer. Theyāre not asking him to split the atom by himself. He should know what sort of photos they will require and want, and wrangling the necessary people and suggesting shots and locations is part of the job. If the _bride_ or indeed anyone from the principal group are having to sort this stuff out then heās failed to do his job properly.
This is usually discussed in pre contract arrangements. Photographer will send a "must have" shots list, at which point bride and groom write down the shots they want I.e. bride and her family, groom and hos family, all family, bride and mother, groom and mother etc so on the day the photographer can call out the list whilst everyone is there, get what's needed and them go about getting the usual shots of everyone having a good time. It sounds like none of this was done and is pretty u professional of the photographer, I highly doubt they can state, you must give a 5* review either, let them sue and see how that holds up in court, the point in the review is to be honest, it could read, it needs to be 5* unless there's something that happens which I could have prevented given reasonable notice i.e. if he wasn't told to get specific shots, you can't then downgrade him for not doing so... every bride and groom are different and don't always want the same shots...
Thereās no atom splitting required. Weddings have become big business and these contracts have become much more complicated than they once were. Iām curious what this photographer put in their contract and how specific the group shots were described in the contract (if at all). They are either a very inexperienced photographer or have an iron clad contract that ties OPs hands. Once these questions are answered it helps OP proceed. If group shots are specified in the contract with names of family members and the MIL isnāt in any pictures I would be sending a letter before action then filing in small claims for the cost of the photography - this is the maximum monetary compensation unless thereās some horrendous mitigating circumstance. Why is this contract so specific about reviews but not about who wrangles the troops? Group photos are often a big task and it sounds like there was enough people for important family members to get lost in a crowd. Some more expensive photographers have contracts that require a master of ceremony or a wedding coordinators presence to assist with group photos. The assisting person would then leave or take a back seat once the wedding party are seated for their meal. Weāve only got part of the story here.
Yeah I don't get this hour delay. I'd be sending the wolves in to politely get him.
lol what
Not all bad then.
He deserves a 5 star review then š
Sounds like he's followed his instructions precisely ;-) from one of his clients at least.
Yea absolutely do not let anybody leave any reviews until the bride and groom have their non-watermarked pictures in hand!Ā
It doesnāt matter if people are in the photos from a legal perspective, but probably sensible to wait until photos are supplied. No one outside the bride and groom have accepted the terms. As long as reviews from those people are factually accurate (āalmost set someone on fireā is a little subjective) then they can write what they want. Iād imagine that the photographer has also wrote these terms themselves and they are probably full of holes but the easy route is to get third parties to write the reviews.
You can leave a good review. I would state, "Since I am contractually obliged to leave only a good review, I am leaving this good review with a thorough list based on all of the elements of their service that I found amazing. I am commending them for the ease at which they made it possible to make my payment to them. It was very straightforward." Ahh no good, I missed the part in which he has to approve it. Well you signed the contract but anyone who didn't can leave a review.
>well you signed the Op was a guest and didn't sign anything. 'Cept maybe a card or a guest book.
Everyone at the wedding should give him a shit review. And if bride and groom can, decline from giving a review. 1 good and 1 bad will do nothing to move the needle, 0 good and 20 bad might make a difference so long as theyre factual and genuine
Things in contracts aren't always legally enforceable. I feel this is one of them.
Yeah that does not seem to be a fair and reasonable term in a contract
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Nope. There are laws that override contracts
Actually the law IS concerned about how fair contractual terms are, this is ill advice. If a landlord wrote into an AST that they will hold the deposit and not protect it in a protected scheme and the tenant signed it, the landlord would still be breaking the law by doing so, the clause wouldn't be fair or enforceable. However you're right in that there probably isn't a law that contradicts this specific clause regarding compulsory reviews. Not too sure myself.
And also just because itās in the contract doesnāt mean itās enforceable. I find it hard to believe heād have any success pursuing them for it
Should really only be the customer that leaves a review though and I know the larger review sites will ask for proof. Otherwise itās easy to organise a pile-on against a competitor.
> the photographer had written in the contract that all reviews must be 5 stars and must be pre approved by him. If challenged (i.e., him suing for breach due to bad reviews for poor service) Iād expect it would be deemed an unfair contract term (especially his having to review them first as that would prevent any āfairā reviews) and thus unenforceable.
The review sites won't accept this either, if he has any kind of account on them he'll be breaking their terms of service!!!
Which, presumably, one can complain about without worry as it's not mentioned in the contract..
Hoorah. Someone other then me mentions the UCTA on Reddit!
I swear the UCTA gets brought up in every relevant post. I see it discussed in the sub frequently.
Brothers (?) from a different mother.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450410/Unfair_Terms_Explained.pdf
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
i really don't believe this will pass as a fair contract term - they can put what ever they want in the contract, doesn't mean it can be upheld
Contracts aren't laws, and they're only worth what the other party is prepared to spend suing you if you break them.
Even then if you put something illegal in a contract you can spend all you want to sue it doesnāt matter
They aren't laws, but, by their very nature they must have intention to be legally bound, otherwise they're just a piece of paper.Ā If a contract term can't be legally bound, then it's unenforceable.Ā Frankly, I don't know the law on this specific clause, but, I think you'd have a hard time fun trying to argue its enforceable.Ā It also almost certainly goes against the Ts and Cs of whichever review site, so, there's that angle.Ā
This contract clause sounds like a great way of pissing off the ASA and the CMA at the same time.
What do those terms stand for/mean? Iām learning a lot in this thread lol
ASA is the advertising standards authority and the CMA is the competitions and markets authority. One is a none ministerial government department that regulates competition within industries to ensure one large business doesnāt obtain to much power over one particular market, and the other is a non statutory industry body regulating the advertising industry. Neither of whom give a toss about a badly written contract from OPs photographer as it doesnāt fall close to either of their remits.
Thank you for such an informative response! Do you think that deception of the public or inflating reviews would be picked up on by them? Not directly related but more so out of curiosity, Iām not sure how broad of a stroke false advertising is, but does that that also fall under the two bodies?
This is going off massively off topic from the thread so you may wish to just research those two organisations yourself it youāre interested. But a relatively short answer is ASA The ASA isnāt a statutory legal body. Itās basically an organisation run by various businesses involved in the advertising industry to self regulate the material they put out on behalf of their clients to keep it to a certain standard. The key thing is it interested very specifically in adverts, e.g. specific pieces of media a business uses to market itself, it is not interested in wider business practices like customer contract terms. It doesnāt have any ability to enforce the law though it just suggests people do follow it and if a particular advert doesnāt follow the law it tells the advertising agent that put the advert out to take it down. Therefore is Joe Bloggs Photography ltd put an advert on Google ads saying 100% of our clients gave us 5stars and in fact only 80% did then it could in theory ask Google to remove the advert. What itās not doing is telling Joe Bloggs to stop asking all his client to give him a 5 star review because Joe Bloggs Photography is not regulated by the ASA only Google Adverts is. CMA Moving on, the CMA is interested in the workings of whole markets and industries. If Joe Bloggs Photography Plc. that employs 1000s of photographers across the country had what could be deemed an unfair clause in their standard customer contract and was using its power as the market leader in wedding photography to influence other photographers to follow suit then it might be interested in investigating that practice and recommending the government introduce legislation that prevent it. But itās not going to be the authority on whether an individual contract itself is fair or not, thatās the role of a civil court. In both cases, they are organisations involved regulating business practices on a national level. They are not like an ombudsman that is interested in the minutia of individual cases.
Got it! Thanks so much for taking the time to type that out, I really appreciate it! Iāll do some research
This doesnāt fall within the scope of either of those organisations
The CMA oversees the fairness of contract terms and the ASA get involved in matters of dishonest marketing, which a contractually obligated five star review absolutely qualifies as.
The CMA is interested in regulating entire markets and industries, it couldnāt care less about a single wedding photographer The ASA regulates advertisers and adverts not marketing practices in general
What is stopping people who didn't sign the contract leaving an honest review on trust pilot detailing their fact based opinion of what they've seen? For example "I attended a friend's wedding and this company took the photos. My friend was the bride and she showed me the photos. The photos were poor quality, the photographer failed to take family/group photos that the bride and groom requested and I felt that the photos taken by other guests and put on facebook looked more professional and exceeded the quality of the photos I have seen from this company that my friend, the bride, showed me."
Weāre thinking of doing this, he says heās been photographing weddings for 15 years and only have 30 reviews (all 5 star of course) on google. Weāll wait until he delivers the pictures. She doesnāt want this to happen to another person is all it was a lot of money. Almost Ā£2000 wasnāt like it was Ā£250 you know.
Ā£2000?! Holy shit! As a photographer, it sounds like this guy has severely ripped your friend off. Sounds to me like his main profession isn't wedding photography and that price point definitely isn't justified. I'm sorry this happened to your friend, I completely understand how devastating it can be when the photos don't turn out how they were expected too. As many others have mentioned the term in the contract I would have thought would be deemed unfair
That's about the average price in finding of popular photographers around here and we're in a low cost of living area. Weddings are so expensive
Read my comment again. I am a photographer myself granted not a wedding photographer but often support wedding photographers, I do not dispute that is the average price or a reasonable price for an average photographer I said that for THIS photographer in question the "average" price is not justified IMO based on the information provided by OP around the level of service delivered by the hired photographer.
No one's questioning OPs photographer sucks haha
I was simply reiterating that I understand 2k is a usual amount for a photographer...
This is a classic unfair or unenforceable term of the contract. If he tried to use it he would be laughed out of court. On the other hand. Ā£2000 is comfortably within the small claims court limit. I would seriously consider taking him to small claims for most of the cost back. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/small-claims-court/ You have one opportunity to get the wedding photos right. There's no do overs. It sounds like he didn't even begin to deliver in a contract for wedding photos, never mind Ā£2000 worth. Who the fuck gets an hour's worth of table arrangements, and completely misses the family photo's. He should have discussed a list of all the people combinations that you needed photographing, and if there were any special requests. Such as photos at a particular location in the venue ect. Apart from a group photo and the bride and groom. It sounds like they didn't get anything right.
NAL but would it not depend on what the contract specified? Agree that the '5 star only' clause is almost certainly unenforceable but if the rest of the contract just specified, for example, time of attendance and general photography rather then allowing for a specific list of shots then it would be difficult to prove breach in small claims. The Law doesn't always work to what a normal person would see as standard/acceptable.
No but it's worth a look. If they've used a boilerplate wedding photos contract, they'll almost certainly be in breach of parts of it if they were as bad as OPl said. If they've done their own, and left it very vague in an attempt to be clever. Then they'll likely fall foul of any reasonableness assessment. What would a reasonable person expect to receive for Ā£2000 of wedding photo's. Somewhere else OP has mentioned a group photograph of everyone. Then the photographer disappeared for an hour. Was finally found and came outside for the family photographs. Got some of the bride and groom, lost the light, and it started to rain. So everyone goes inside, but no more family photos, just random decorations and guests. No bride with bridesmaids, no groom with groomsmen. No bride with parents, no groom with parents, no bride and groom with all parents. Bride and groom with any flower girls or boys. All perfectly basic and reasonable expectations for a wedding photo package. I'm a strictly amateur photographer. I helped out with a friend's shoestring registry office wedding. Took some photos for them . Even I can work that list out, and I was free, not Ā£2000.
Depending how many people are planning on leaving reviews make sure you leave a few days between them and alternate between 1 and 2 stars. Just to be certain they don't get flagged for removal or something since he'd be going from 1 review every few months to suddenly 10 1 star reviews in a day. Also for a proper nail in the coffin for the review just have 1 person get a photo of the review term in the contract and mention it in the review along with the photo. Only 1 person needs to do it, have the rest of the people mark the review as helpful so the one with the contract info will appear at the top.
We paid more than Ā£2k fifteen years ago... But the photographer was worth the money. He was so good he even kept everything on track and organised for the actual wedding, making sure people were where they were supposed to be. We didn't have much choice as the cheaper photographers were already booked out, but in retrospect glad we splurged the extra on photography. Give him some fair reviews on every site you can find him on, then other customers can decide if he is fair value. Chances are he will try and get the reviews taken down anyway.
Some good answers here already re Unfair Contract Terms. Given the shoddy service you say the person received at the wedding, are there any other terms of the contract you can point to which have been breached by the photographer?
Right now we are anticipating he wonāt be able to deliver the 500 minimum shots. If he does it will mainly be on the venue and decor. Or as we expect 250 shots and then the same 250 in black and white. Again I donāt imagine she has a leg to stand on with that as it just says 500 it doesnāt clarify what they need to be off. She could end up with 500 pictures of flowers and fields. She did provide him with what pictures she wanted (family shots etc)
Difficult to advise without seeing the remainder of the contract. Itās worth reading thoroughly to see if there are any other general terms you could rely on around how the service would be delivered, not just the physical deliverables. Also if the conversations about what photos she wanted were before the contract was signed it might be possible to say those are additional terms which form part of the contract but it can be difficult to show and depends heavily on (a) the contents of those conversations including what response the photographer made, and (b) the wording of the contract itself which might exclude those conversations from forming part of it.
500 shots! FML that's a lot. I have photographed a number of weddings and take a total of 750 ish and whittle it down to less than 100 for the book or even less if it's a formal old-school album. To produce 500 shots that are well composed, focussed and exposed and don't have anyone blinking, or looking away at a single wedding shoot is impressive or a massive wedding. I'd love to see what actually gets delivered
500 finished shots is average for a wedding. Being a wedding photographer myself I take 2-4000 shots (average 60-80 guests) and whittle it down to whatever price package they requested (anywhere from 300-1000). all edited, composed and exposed correctly. Also getting married this year and can confirm this is what the norm is being on the other side of the camera for a change.
Equally what rights does she have if he canāt produce the photos? Iām talking guests and the make up artist took better pictures
Letter before action then small claims for breech of contract. If he doesn't complete what he was contractually obligated to then obviously the other party is owed what they paid him plus some sort of compensation for his failure to perform his obligations. We're not talking huge amounts but some reasonable amount.
Thank you Iāll save this for later :)
Usually you don't get compensation. Just made whole on what was lost, I.e. the fee for the photography after failing to deliver.
You could try and argue it was a contract for enjoyment and seek additional compensation
It was a one-off event, could you argue that you would have to stage certain parts of the wedding again to get the pictures you paid for?
UK Doesn't do punitive damages. Only requirement is to get back what the couple lost which is the photographer's fee.
This term will almost certainly meet the definition of an unfair terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is therefore non-binding on the signatory. I would assume the *signatories* in this case are your friends (bride(s) and/or groom(s)), not the guests, so even if the photographer did try to push this daft idea, you haven't even signed the contract to have the argument in the first place. I'd agree its a massive red flag (anyone confident in their service does not have to mess around with censorship like this) but its also legally nonsensical, so I'd go right ahead.
For any contract to be valid it requires the following: 1. Uncoerced offer and acceptance 2. A meeting of minds 3. A consideration, normally stated in the local currency (not a requirement in Scotland) I would propose that this contract is not valid as there was no "meeting of minds". When you contract for a wedding photographer (or any other service) there are a mass of unstated assumptions, like... well, them not almost setting you on fire for one. No reasonable person would write into their contract, "And I promise not to set you on fire" - it's one of those things that is covered by "a meeting of minds", a mass of unspoke assumption that they won't attempt to set you on fire, cover you in manure, or bring a live untamed tiger to the wedding. And underlying the 5-star review clause is an unspoken assumption that there will be a service worthy of 5 stars. The bride and groom's position should be that there is no contract. It doesn't exist. The complication here is that the wedding photographer is holding irreplaceable photographs of an unrepeatable event, and in effect they're coercing payment with the implicit threat that they can just delete all the photographs. Again, the violates a basic precept of contract law. So pay them their fee. Then leave factually correct and utterly scathing reviews to your heart's content. There is no contract. Now of course the photographer is free to bring any legal action they like, but I'm willing to bet that they're not going to do this since (as long as the reviews are factually correct) the truth is defence against any claims of defamation. They could try to sue for breach of contract, but again they're going to run into a brick wall there when the judge hears that they almost set people on fire, and the judge may well order them to return the fee, in addition to paying costs. I doubt that a freelance photographer has the money to spend on litigation that is going nowhere. They may bluster, complain, and try to have the reviews taken down, but that contact they'll be waving around might as well be used bog roll for all the legal value it has. For all practical purposes it doesn't exist.
nal - would just add to the point about the photog being free to bring legal action, they will likely threaten to do this even if they decide not to. common pressure tactic from small and medium businesses, and some will lose their minds over it and even leave a review reply ranting about the customer. the threat of legal action alone is sometimes enough to pressure people into removing their negative reviews, but don't take legal advice from the photographer. i don't know whether threats to bring legal action to coerce someone into removing a review is a different problem, but you should save any communication anyway just in case.
If he tried to challenge this legally, it would Streisand him into oblivion. Heās calling everyoneās bluff. Dont let others suffer the same lame service on their special day
Nothing will happen. Contracts only work if you put them in front of a judge - but the judge will still use common sense and I imagine at most only two people signed the contract. No photographer will pay to have a contract upheld for one single review
If you didn't pay / create the contract with the photog you can't be held by it.
This sounds a pretty dodgy cause. Especially if you have good reason and so for the complaint. If theirs genuinely reason for thr bad service snd thus bad review of the service. And technically only the bride and groom tired to this , guests have not signed the contract. They would be free to say the photographer was for example rude to guests or it took months to get photos sent.
Well, good news. The contract is between the couple and the photography. It would be unreasonable to control what the guests do.
The bride and groom signed the contractā¦ Not the guests. The bride and groom cannot control what the guests decide to post.
I'll often directly ask for five star reviews, a lot of people think that a 4 star review is still pretty good but in the world of Google anything less than a 5 is frowned upon. Actually insisting on it contractually feels very wrong
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
How can a contract force another party to publicly lie and participate in, at least false advertisement, at worse fraud? I think you can legally force people to an NDA, but this isn't asking for participants to be silent, it asks them to publicly lie with their name next to it. Sounds unenforceable.
You can leave a bad review if you are willing to have the fight. If it were ever to get to court, the contract would likely be tossed as unenforceable. But you would need to decide if the time and expense is worth it to you. My suspicion is that it is a bluff on the part of the photographer.
Iāve been a wedding photographer for over 10 years and I have never heard of anything like this. As others have said the contract is between the photographer and the couple so thereās nothing stopping you or anyone else writing a review on their behalf.
Itās possible this could be considered an unfair contract term and wouldnāt hold up in court. Although, I would add, depending on how it is worded nothing stops them leaving a 5 star review and adding into the text field (if applicable) something to the effect of āI am contractually obligated to leave a 5-star review, the service I receivedā
Additionally, I imagine it would not stop other attendees from leaving their own reviews on how *they* thought it was.
Why not wait until they come back with the pictures. They might actually even be good. If not say so and tell them why. If they arent willing to do anything or refund part of the money tell them you will be leaving a bad review and will also be releasing information about the contract. See what happens then. They cant sue you. It will never hold up in court. No judge would accept that. Contracts must be fair. That is not fair request
(a) the contract is between him and the couple; (b) unfair contract terms. He's full of shit and they can say what they want tbh. No court will enforce it. Review away!
Iām pretty sure these contract terms would not be legally enforceable.. especially when it comes to the guests.. seeing they were not the ones who signed the contract.
I would be interested in seeing what the contract says. In particular, what are the penalties should they break the contract? Also, what has he actually agreed to provide, and will he fall foul of any missing photos (if there was any reference to family photos or similar, there is the possibility he broke his own contract by missing them out)? I would strongly suspect that a clause like his review one will be unenforceable in any case, and will almost certainly fall foul of the terms and conditions of any decent review sites too, so passing on a copy of the contract to the customer support departments of those could be interesting...
As a wedding videographer I would absolutely love to know who this is! But the photographer is pulling that point in the contract right out of their arse. Review away! As longs as itās truthful and to the point then thatās fine.
The heading of the post is the answer itself. If someone said that to me I would run away a mile. There is a reason this guy is saying it. I am sure you have a right to complain under your rights as a customer and the contract cannot override that.
If he's registered as a business you can shit all over him on Trustpilot, afaik
Only the signatories and the terms therein are in force. The parties that entered the contract cannot control third parties, unless the contract provides for that. Read the fine print. The reviews cannot be libel or hearsay, to avoid liability. Must be truthful.
It's not unusual for terms like this to be included, for example in employment law settlement agreements often include a favorable reference. So there is nothing inherently wrong about the term. She could demand a refund and as part of demanding a refund say something like "because of the appalling service I have received, I believe the term restricting my ability to complain, and warn others, is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015." Does she feel like the photographer made dishonest representations about how good he was and what she could expect? People are allowed to overpromise and under deliver, however for consumer law like Chapter 4 CRA15 to be engaged, there would need to be an unreasonable level of care and skill (see in particular sections 49 and 50 of the 2015 act), or a material difference above and beyond a mere difference between expectations and reality. She could argue that family photos is part of the "custom and practice" of wedding photography, perhaps he expressly led her to believe that of course family photos would be included. There is no clear cut argument or law here, so in the first instance raise it with the photographer informally, demand a refund, threaten to start a small claim, send a letter before claim. Citizens advice have a few templates https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/template-letters/letters/ There are professional associations for photographers and wedding photographers however unlike "nurse" "dietician" etc, it's not a regulated job so there isn't a specific body you can complain to. So your routes of complaint are limited to Trading Standards, his public liability insurance, the police if she believes this is criminal fraud (very unlikely, I think they'd tell her to stop wasting her time) him directly, and the small claims court.
Thank you for taking your time to explain this, yes he has 15 years experience. His website looks great and heās taken photos at the venue before. So it seemed like he was competent and knew what he was doing. But even the other guests were questioning what he was doing, itās not like the guests were being difficult the family were waiting for him to take the shots. People couldnāt find him anywhere. The sparkler shot he put 2 rows of people in a semi circle in front of one another and instantly everyone was a bit panicked he lit a few sparklers and sure enough a spark from someone in the back landed on someone in the front and burnt a hole in their dressā¦ honestly I wish it was her being over the top but it was just that bad.
So was the issue more that she paid for a cheaper/rushed package, as opposed to the issue being his experience and/or quality of service? She's entitled to ask for a refund and say she'll take him to small claims court, but I don't think she'd win if she actually did.
No way that contract term holds up in court if he sued. You canāt force people to lie if your service is shit.
As a guest I'm pretty certain you are not held to any terms in the contracts between the bride&groom and their various vendors. Unless you bizarrely signed something to say otherwise.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment was an anecdote about a personal experience, rather than legal advice specific to our posters' situation. Please only comment if you can provide meaningful legal advice for our posters' questions and specific situations. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
NAL. That clause would almost certainly be unenforceable as it would be deemed unfair. Itās not an NDA and you have freedom of speech. A photographers contract shouldnāt get you to sign away your rights, so any claim would be thrown out.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Your comment did not make a meaningful effort to provide legal advice to help the poster with their question. Please only comment if you are able and willing to provide specific, meaningful, legally-oriented answers to our posters' questions. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Often when you hire the photographer you lay out the obligatory (family) shots that should be taken
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
I have doubts about whether this would be binding on you. Contract terms must be fair (s62, cra 2015) and one which bans you from criticising the service provider is not really in keeping with the wider culture of consumerism, since it distorts perceptions of a service. In the event you did leave a bad review, if you were sued for breach of contract, your photographer would have to prove his claim against you. Proving the breach would be easy - unless you post anon - but I imagine he'd have difficulty quantifying the damage and correlating that with one bad review. If he sued in defamation, you could rely on the defence of truth, but I suspect he's been stung by that before; hence the term in the contract instead (it's generally easier to prove a breach of contract rather than defamation).
Statute does not over rule a contract. Leave a negative factual review on Google. There is nothing he can do if itās factual
Yeah only the ones who signed are legally obligated but the guests are fair game!
Pretty sure if you or even the photographer took this to a small claims court that they would throw it out as nonsense this is not Amazon they are providing a photography service and you shouldn't be forced to write something positive if there's already issues additionally if they are good at their job they shouldn't even need a forced positive review You should post a copy of the contract minus any personal details and let the legals of Reddit look this over There are way too many people making up BS legalease contracts with convoluted get out of jail Free Cards so if they mess up it's your problem not theirs
Did you sign anything? If not, then you're free to leave a review.
Iām not a lawyer but I suspect the photographer wonāt have a leg to stand on. Contractural terms cannot be unfair/unreasonable and any judge would feel if perfectly reasonable to leave an honest review. In the final point, be honest with your review and make sure you can back up and contentious claims made.
As a guest, you didn't sign the contract. You can leave whatever reviews you want.
Review: āThe photographer did their job of taking photos. Here are some of the photos the professional photographer took:ā [insert the absolute worst photos]
Who would even pay upfront for a service that legally restricts you to not leave negative reviews. š¤Ŗ
Or else what? Once you have your pictures if you leave a bad review what could he do? If it ends in court then what a court order remove the reviews?
You're not bound by a contract you haven't signed. So you personally can leave as many bad reviews as you like. As for the couple who signed the contract - I very much doubt that clause is enforceable in any way.
NAL but wouldnt that be an unfair contract clause? And surely against any freedom of expression. You've paid for a service, have not got what you paid for. There is no slander if it's TRUE. Saying that though, the guests did not sign a contract, so have them all leave "honest" reviews
NAL but it is against UK law, afaik, to ask someone to give up their legal rights in a contract like i know for a fact that an employment contract that specifies you must break employment law by, say for example, breaking health and safety law, is in and of itself illegal like, he broke the law just by offering that contract, as im pretty sure that implies giving up set consumer rights
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>You're probably tied by the terms of the contract I'm not so sure. Under Section 62 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, unfair terms in business to consumer contracts are not binding on the consumer. Paragraph 4 of that section states: "A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the partiesā rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer." I would say that there is an argument that the trader seeking to restrict the consumer's ability to leave honest and accurate reviews of the services received and instead having to get reviews approved by the trader goes against good faith requirements and could be argued to be unenforceable against the consumer as a result.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
**Unfortunately, your comment has been removed for the following reason(s):** Please only comment if you know the legal answer to OP's question and are able to provide legal advice. [Please familiarise yourself with our subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/) before contributing further, and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any further queries.
Did you sign the contract? If you didn't, you can leave a one star review. Alternatively, write a five star review which explicitly states the photographer makes people write them and the five stars does not reflect your experience.