Low ball pricing and exotic definitions of the search parameters should send up a red flag. Also I had a question...for all those who have run into this problem...did the client's search order not reference a price for the search requested? If not, why would an abstractor accept the assignment before clarifying the issue of price? If the search order referenced a price different from the established price of the abstractor, why was no inquiry made as to the difference before the search was performed?
If no such inquiry was made by the abstractor, the client's order at a lower price could be deemed a counter offer to a price list submitted to a client or possibly a contract modification to an existing contract which the abstractor accepted when he/she performed the search. Sorry to rain on the parade, but the abstractors need to be a little more vigilant before accepting the orders, and do something more than complain after the fact. Until they do, they will continue to be victimized by such business practices. Unless the abstractor made inquiry about price prior to performing the search, he/she has only himself/herself to blame for collection problems.
If the search order referenced one price, but the client made payment at a lower price, then the abstractor needs to become more assertive in protecting his/her contract rights rather than slumbering on them.
Scott, this is true even if you have written contracts in place with your clients unless your contracts define the form of modifications. In Connecticut verbal modifications of written contracts are effective. It would seem that a written search order with a differing price term would be even more conclusive,especially if the search was performed subsequent to receipt of the order.
to post a reply:
login - or -
register