Who is unreasonable?

[MrBlower]

Brian asked Rick to do a job for him. Once Rick had already quoted and began work on said job, Brian then asked Rick to do something else, a separate job (job 2). Rick quoted separately for job 2 and said he would start it when job 1 was finished.

Job 1 has now been finished and Rick has invoiced Brian for it stating that he'll then begin on job 2 shortly.

Brian has said he will not pay for job 1 until job 2 has been completed.

Rick wants paying for job 1 first as this was a completely separate quote and job and had already begun when Brian asked for job 2.

Who is unreasonable?

Job 1 needs to be paid

Brian is UR

Brian is unreasonable (and likely a monstrous bellend as well!).

Job 1 should of course be paid for first, they’re separate jobs with separate invoices.

Brian is unreasonable!

Brian is unreasonable.

Brian.
Also, depends on whether purchasing materials up front is involved - if so should be charging cost of those up front.
Rick should be cautious about accepting job 2 as well - why enter in to more work that the person contracting is going to be a twat about paying?

Rick needs to be paid first.

Job 1 needs to be paid. My DH also always asks for martial costs upfront in case he gets a non payer....

Brian is definitely being unreasonable.

Practically speaking does Rick have any evidence of the acceptance of the quote for Job 1? and/or formal quotations for jobs 1 and 2?

If so, does the quote for job 2 make it clear it will not run concurrently to job 1? does the acceptance of the quote for job 1 include payment terms?

If this was all verbally agreed then a) that was quite foolish on Rick part, and b) there may be little Rick can do.

If I was Rick, I would be telling Brian that I will in no circumstances be doing job 2 until payment for job 1 has been made, that whether or not Brian now wants job 2 to proceed, I will be formally billing him for the Job 1 and will go to court if payment is not made according to the terms.

Brian is unreasonable.

Thank you. Yes DH is Rick.

He actually did get material costs upfront as he always does. The balance is for labour. Client is arguing that they'll pay when all works are completed however DH, as mentioned, quoted completely separately for jobs as one had already started when the other was requested.

Yeah, Brian is unreasonable

Brian is taking the piss. If I was Rick I wouldn’t be doing a thing until job 1 was paid for. If I was Rick I’d be expecting another excuse not to pay when job 2 was also complete.

Brian doesn't get to decide the payment terms. He agreed to those when he agreed for Rick to do the work.

Brains been a bellend

Definitely job 1 should be paid as agreed.

*Brian!

Yes quotes were both done formally, in writing.

The invoice for job 1 also states very clearly that it does not relate to job 2 which was quoted separately and will also therefore be invoiced separately on completion.

Invoice terms are clearly stated as 'due on receipt'.

yup job 1 should be paid and id probably walk away from job2 altogether

Job 1 needs to be paid for as they are separate jobs

Brian is a dick

Pay up matey then job 2 can commence. Some people are chancers. No fall for it.

When already started, how already started? Could the client argument be that they asked for a revised quote and that Brian started when they had not given the go ahead yet?

Brian. Obviously