The Employee by joshua schwebel
About this project

Contract

Carl Schwebel <██████████████████████ > To: Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

I've gone through the Contract.  There is still a question about third party beneficiary we need to discuss.

If you can send me a clean copy after you have gone through the changes, I can do a final read-through before anything is signed.

Love, d.

Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

hi Dad,
thanks, sorry I didn't call last night, I was so super tired.
I had a pretty full day today, but will give you a call tomorrow if that's ok. 
thank you for going through the contract. I will check it over and get back to you tomorrow.
I hope you had a good day yesterday, it was a bit difficult to get a strong signal to hear what you were saying, but you looked happy enough.
love you!
x

Carl Schwebel <██████████████████████ >

Hi dear,  Thanks. I did have a good day yesterday.  I even removed the screw!

Talk tomorrow. Love, d.

Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

hi dad,
I just wanted to update you: we didn't really find a satisfactory candidate from the interviews, so we are speaking with a couple more people tomorrow. I think the contract is pretty much ready, although I'm not entirely sure what part you still want to work on.
I added a photo release that you already wrote for an earlier project in the comments. If you feel that it's useful to incorporate that's great, if not, no problem.
huggggggs

Carl Schwebel <██████████████████████ >

I added the Photograph language, with minor changes, in section 9.  I forgot to discuss the 'third party beneficiary' issue with you when we spoke (section 18). We should do this next time we speak.

Love, d.

Josh Schwebel <privatejosh@gmail.com>

thanks so much Dad,
I'll give you a call probably on the weekend or on friday to talk more in detail about this ███ ███ █████ █████████ █ █████████ ███████.
love you too

Carl Schwebel <██████████████████████ >

Hi Josh,

I have added a third party beneficiary clause.  I did not mention when we spoke Sunday that if we allow the Gallery to sue the Employee, the courts may also allow the Employee to sue the Gallery.  Generally, there is a concern that it is unjust to allow a party to sue on a contract when it cannot be sued on it.  I think in many cases this would lead to a fair result, for example, if the Gallery provided unsafe working conditions resulting in injury to the Employee, the Employee should be allowed to sue the Gallery directly.  I can think of cases where it is less clear that the result is correct.  For example if the Employee performed the services and you refused to pay, the Employee could sue the Gallery for compensation.  But in that case, I think the Employee could recover compensation from the Gallery with or without a contract, if the services were performed for the benefit of, and were freely accepted by, the Gallery.  But then of course, the Gallery would sue you for your failure to pay the Employee.

I have also added an enurement clause, which extends the benefit and burden of the contract to your estate - and the Employee's estate, if either of you die.  I think a similar clause should have been included in the contract with the Gallery, so that for example, your estate could rely on the indemnity and release provisions in that contract.  The clause would also come into play if there was a corporate reorganization of the Gallery during the term.  I could, if you want, prepare a short letter or agreement adding a clause.  The wording would be a little different because the Gallery is a corporation and not an individual.

Love, d.