Equipment Rental Service
- Thread starter szekiat
- Start date
- Status
Hi, since I have not recieved any questions on my proposed rental service, the following is a list of the preliminary round of equipment on loan based on the format below:
Lens type;Make;Rental Charge per day;Deposit
eg. 300mm F2.8 AFS;Nikon;$xxx;$xxxxx
Nikon Mount
50mm f1.4 MF;Nikon;$10;$200
55mm(micro) f2.8 MF;Nikon;$10;$200
17mm f3.5 AF;Tokina;$10;$200
50mm f1.8 AFD;Nikon;$10/180
80mm f2.8 MF;CZJ;$10;$200
85mm f1.8 AFD; Nikon; $25; $450
17-35mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$35/2200
28-70mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$40/2400
70-210mm f4-5.6 AF;Nikon;$15;$200
70-200mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$40/2600
300mm f2.8 AFSII;Nikon;$180;$5500
Canon Mount
70-200mm f2.8L USM;Canon;$30;$1600
20-35mm f2.8L;Canon;$20;$1000
Leica Thread Mount with M-mount adaptor
75mm f2.5; Voigtlander;$10;$450
50mm f1.5; Voigtlander;$10;$450
35mm f1.7; Voigtlander;$10;$400
Camera Bodies
Xpan w/45mm lens;Hasselblad;$40;$2200
Bessa R2 w/Twinder;Voigtlander;$20;$800
F100 w/mb15;Nikon;$50;$1500
D1x;Nikon;$100;$4500
Flash
Canon 550EX;$20;$480
Nikon SB28DX;$20;$400
Nikon SB28;$10;$350
Misc. Accessories/Others
Nikon MD4 motor drive for F3,F3P,F3HP,F3T; $15;$200
Nikon 2xTC AFS (only for >200mm Nikon AFS lens):$20;$450
Nikon SK-6 Power Bracket;$20;$500
Nikon SC-17 cable:$10;$100
Sekonic Light Meter L-508;$20;$450
Medium Format
Hasselblad 500CM+80mm f2.8 Planar lens(w/original filter)+magazine;$80;$2500
Mamiya 645 Pro TL+AE Prism Finder + 120 Magazine+Motor winder;$60;$1100
Mamiya 645 150mm f3.5 Sekkor C;$20;$300
Maimiya Package(all above);$70;$1400
All deposits will be made in cash or with equipment of equivalent resale value. No personal cheques allowed. Pls direct all querries and bookings to my hp 90698948 or PM me.
Thanks for your support.
PS: Most of the rental will be used for servicing the lens to maintain it in good condition.
Lens type;Make;Rental Charge per day;Deposit
eg. 300mm F2.8 AFS;Nikon;$xxx;$xxxxx
Nikon Mount
50mm f1.4 MF;Nikon;$10;$200
55mm(micro) f2.8 MF;Nikon;$10;$200
17mm f3.5 AF;Tokina;$10;$200
50mm f1.8 AFD;Nikon;$10/180
80mm f2.8 MF;CZJ;$10;$200
85mm f1.8 AFD; Nikon; $25; $450
17-35mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$35/2200
28-70mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$40/2400
70-210mm f4-5.6 AF;Nikon;$15;$200
70-200mm f2.8 AFS;Nikon;$40/2600
300mm f2.8 AFSII;Nikon;$180;$5500
Canon Mount
70-200mm f2.8L USM;Canon;$30;$1600
20-35mm f2.8L;Canon;$20;$1000
Leica Thread Mount with M-mount adaptor
75mm f2.5; Voigtlander;$10;$450
50mm f1.5; Voigtlander;$10;$450
35mm f1.7; Voigtlander;$10;$400
Camera Bodies
Xpan w/45mm lens;Hasselblad;$40;$2200
Bessa R2 w/Twinder;Voigtlander;$20;$800
F100 w/mb15;Nikon;$50;$1500
D1x;Nikon;$100;$4500
Flash
Canon 550EX;$20;$480
Nikon SB28DX;$20;$400
Nikon SB28;$10;$350
Misc. Accessories/Others
Nikon MD4 motor drive for F3,F3P,F3HP,F3T; $15;$200
Nikon 2xTC AFS (only for >200mm Nikon AFS lens):$20;$450
Nikon SK-6 Power Bracket;$20;$500
Nikon SC-17 cable:$10;$100
Sekonic Light Meter L-508;$20;$450
Medium Format
Hasselblad 500CM+80mm f2.8 Planar lens(w/original filter)+magazine;$80;$2500
Mamiya 645 Pro TL+AE Prism Finder + 120 Magazine+Motor winder;$60;$1100
Mamiya 645 150mm f3.5 Sekkor C;$20;$300
Maimiya Package(all above);$70;$1400
All deposits will be made in cash or with equipment of equivalent resale value. No personal cheques allowed. Pls direct all querries and bookings to my hp 90698948 or PM me.
Thanks for your support.
PS: Most of the rental will be used for servicing the lens to maintain it in good condition.
Kudos to you for the rental idea mate. You're a brave one. I hope you're successful in it.
On the legal issues, let's deal with it one by one.
Firstly, the agreement that a customer signs with you, the rentor, is valid. A personal contract is no different from the contract a corporation makes with another. A contract is recognised by law only when the necessary conditions are met: Offer and Acceptance and Consideration. An invitation to treat is NOT necessary. It is merely an advertisement, ie, attracts business, but does not form the core of the business.
Offer and Acceptance must be clear and direct. Ie, you must be directing at the specific customer the terms of the contract, and after that, it is up to the customer to accept the terms unequivocally. Basically, both sign, acknowledge agreement, can already.
Consideration is simple. the act of the customer paying the deposit is consideration for the contract. the promise of the lender lending the equipment... note, it is not the ACT of lending, but the PROMISE of lending that is crucial here. The court wants to see that there has been a detriment taken by the promisor.
After these 2 steps, we have a contract that any court will recognise. Both parties must then keep strictly to the terms of the contract.
----
the problem is that there is a bit of personal property law involved here. The camera equipment is personal property, but a contract binds the parties involved, and has no bearing on what happens to the property. This means that if the customer runs off with the property, you can sue him for breach of contract, but it is doubtful that you can claim for the return of the property. The reason is that ownership of the property belongs to the person who holds the title to the property... but this isn't land, so personal property title is in the property. ie he who holds it owns it. but i'm unsure on this point.
What is certain is that you better have a clause in your contract demanding full compensation for breach of the terms of the agreement. In contract law, that means damages returning the parties to the point before the contract was made, which means the purchase price of the equipment... and hopefully legal costs
On the legal issues, let's deal with it one by one.
Firstly, the agreement that a customer signs with you, the rentor, is valid. A personal contract is no different from the contract a corporation makes with another. A contract is recognised by law only when the necessary conditions are met: Offer and Acceptance and Consideration. An invitation to treat is NOT necessary. It is merely an advertisement, ie, attracts business, but does not form the core of the business.
Offer and Acceptance must be clear and direct. Ie, you must be directing at the specific customer the terms of the contract, and after that, it is up to the customer to accept the terms unequivocally. Basically, both sign, acknowledge agreement, can already.
Consideration is simple. the act of the customer paying the deposit is consideration for the contract. the promise of the lender lending the equipment... note, it is not the ACT of lending, but the PROMISE of lending that is crucial here. The court wants to see that there has been a detriment taken by the promisor.
After these 2 steps, we have a contract that any court will recognise. Both parties must then keep strictly to the terms of the contract.
----
the problem is that there is a bit of personal property law involved here. The camera equipment is personal property, but a contract binds the parties involved, and has no bearing on what happens to the property. This means that if the customer runs off with the property, you can sue him for breach of contract, but it is doubtful that you can claim for the return of the property. The reason is that ownership of the property belongs to the person who holds the title to the property... but this isn't land, so personal property title is in the property. ie he who holds it owns it. but i'm unsure on this point.
What is certain is that you better have a clause in your contract demanding full compensation for breach of the terms of the agreement. In contract law, that means damages returning the parties to the point before the contract was made, which means the purchase price of the equipment... and hopefully legal costs
V
vince123123
Guest
You sure you cannot claim for the return of the property? how abt under converstion in tort? another thing is possession and title are different issues, you may have possession but you may not have title.
in any event doesn't damages under breach of contract already cover the loss suffered by the innocent party? although it never hurts to have an indemnity.
in any event doesn't damages under breach of contract already cover the loss suffered by the innocent party? although it never hurts to have an indemnity.
Teddman said:----
the problem is that there is a bit of personal property law involved here. The camera equipment is personal property, but a contract binds the parties involved, and has no bearing on what happens to the property. This means that if the customer runs off with the property, you can sue him for breach of contract, but it is doubtful that you can claim for the return of the property. The reason is that ownership of the property belongs to the person who holds the title to the property... but this isn't land, so personal property title is in the property. ie he who holds it owns it. but i'm unsure on this point.
What is certain is that you better have a clause in your contract demanding full compensation for breach of the terms of the agreement. In contract law, that means damages returning the parties to the point before the contract was made, which means the purchase price of the equipment... and hopefully legal costs
vince123123 said:You sure you cannot claim for the return of the property? how abt under converstion in tort? another thing is possession and title are different issues, you may have possession but you may not have title.
in any event doesn't damages under breach of contract already cover the loss suffered by the innocent party? although it never hurts to have an indemnity.
of course conversion in tort is possible, don't get me wrong. But tort is NOT a proprietary cause of action. in short, the court will order payment of damages, ie an in personam remedy. Money, not the lens back. And if the feller just says i ain't got the cash, you can't claim his property, cos its a personal remedy you have. You earn the right to demand cash. That's all.
Possession and title are 2 different things, agreed. But how do you prove title to a movable object? ie in this case, the lens? The reciept? nope. That just shows that you purchased the lens. It is not like land, where a title by the government registrar shows that YOU own the land. In the case of a chattel, or a moveable object, title and possession could well be the same.
But this is just an opinion of mine, from what limited legal resources I have. So please, if you do have some statute or authority that says otherwise, please enlighten me. Very interesting topic...
Teddman.
szekiat said:
Here's my suggestion to you - instead of cash another option you could offer for the deposit would be a CASH (not personal) cheque. So if the hirer absconds with your equipment & should the cheque bounce, you can make a police report against the person for cheating. OK, need the online legal eagles to come in here now to give their opinion & advice on this suggestion.
cyrilng said:
me always tot cash cheque still a personal cheque. If the cheque is made of a material called rubber and it start to bounce, how? What if he steal someone's cheque book and starts sending rubber cheque? Make police report the things can get back in one piece meh? Still so troublesome, got to make police report and so on. Just think if that guy run away with a $10,000 equipment, and you report police, you think you can get the equipment back?
So Cold Hard Cash is still the best thing.
Your suggestion got lots and lots of loop hole. The morale of the story here is ...... Prevention is better then cure ;P
blurblock said:
A cash cheque is good as cash, you can bring it to the bank where the cheque was issued & get cold hard cash. If the cheque bounces, it will be referred to the police as cheating which is a seizable offence because it implies that you issued the cheque knowing that you did not have enough cash in your account to cover it. A personal cheque on the other hand, if it bounces, the bank will just tell you to refer back to the issuer due to insufficient funds & you can only make a report of fraudulent debtor (civil suit) to the police.
There are some finer points & my explanation is simplistic but that's why I sought the opinion & advice of those more conversant with the law. Clearly you do not qualify...
cyrilng said:A cash cheque is good as cash, you can bring it to the bank where the cheque was issued & get cold hard cash. If the cheque bounces, it will be referred to the police as cheating which is a seizable offence because it implies that you issued the cheque knowing that you did not have enough cash in your account to cover it. A personal cheque on the other hand, if it bounces, the bank will just tell you to refer back to the issuer due to insufficient funds & you can only make a report of fraudulent debtor (civil suit) to the police.
There are some finer points & my explanation is simplistic but that's why I sought the opinion & advice of those more conversant with the law. Clearly you do not qualify...
But you do live up to your nickname though :bsmilie:
szekiat said:
Hi! Szekiat. Are into business or you are just make do with what you have and not wanting to let your dear equipment to dust?
I am trying to understand your purpose. Is it for profit or interest? COs since you mention that the rental fees shall be used for servicing the items. This equated to relatively zero in profit or maybe non-profitable. As such, it seems to me you are doing it out of good interest to both your equipment and your customers.
Personally, I do agree with your so -call venture (as this has cross my mind too). Your concept of charging is right in sense. Are you registered as a Company? Think about it. :thumbsup:
Keep it up but remember.....no profit no business.
cyrilng said:A cash cheque is good as cash, you can bring it to the bank where the cheque was issued & get cold hard cash. If the cheque bounces, it will be referred to the police as cheating which is a seizable offence because it implies that you issued the cheque knowing that you did not have enough cash in your account to cover it. A personal cheque on the other hand, if it bounces, the bank will just tell you to refer back to the issuer due to insufficient funds & you can only make a report of fraudulent debtor (civil suit) to the police.
There are some finer points & my explanation is simplistic but that's why I sought the opinion & advice of those more conversant with the law. Clearly you do not qualify...
A Cash cheque is not as good as cash. If it is as good as cash, then just give cash, why give cheque? Anyway, Szekiat is not in the business of renting equipment full time, he is a professional photographer full time, renting out his not often used equipment is just to help hobbyist have a go with the equipment they will not be using often, and thus no point spenting thousands just for that one day shot.
I think the law of tort does not differenciate personal cheque and cash cheque. And yes, I do not qualify in talking about law, but in common sense, other then those who are in full time renting business, non full time person, like szekiat, would not want to be engaged in the hassle, especially if he is only providing a service. Those in full time renting business will buy insurance for their equipment against such cheating cases, and I am quite sure no one will want to incur cost by buy such insurance if they are not doing it full time. Thus the only thing they can be sure of prevention against such fraud is to have it paid full amount (or giving a piece of equipment that is equivient in value) and refund the money back when the person who loan it returns.
Please look into the view of the person providing the service during spare time instead of the person providing the service full time. I am quite sure Szekiat makes no (not much anyway) money renting out his unused equipment, just for the maintenance of the equipment, thus you cannot expect him to carry the burden. For him it is simple, meet my condition and you get to loan the equipment, if not, sorry look for someone else, I don't rent equipment for a living.
Just my 2cts
to ans a few questions:
I am not in business and do not intend to start anytime, ever. For one, i am leaving the country in a few mths time and won't be back for a few years. Blurblock was close. I'm a freelancer with some eqpt to spare. I still hold a day job (which while shooting related, doesn't require me to shoot every day) and hence do not use my stuff every day. I tot i'd rent out my eqpt to ppl who, while able to afford the eqpt, do not want to spend the type of money for something they won't use often. Also, its for ppl who are about to buy something but would like to test it out before buying. As in test the lens in the field, not in the shop. I find that if by paying say 30-100 dollars, i get to test out a lens, it will still be cheaper than buying one and then realising that i don't quite like it. I started this co-op after facing some frustration in trying to loan a 400mm lens. As blurblock says, to put it bluntly, if u can't agree with my terms, then look elsewhere. I have nothing to lose by turning away a customer.
I am not in business and do not intend to start anytime, ever. For one, i am leaving the country in a few mths time and won't be back for a few years. Blurblock was close. I'm a freelancer with some eqpt to spare. I still hold a day job (which while shooting related, doesn't require me to shoot every day) and hence do not use my stuff every day. I tot i'd rent out my eqpt to ppl who, while able to afford the eqpt, do not want to spend the type of money for something they won't use often. Also, its for ppl who are about to buy something but would like to test it out before buying. As in test the lens in the field, not in the shop. I find that if by paying say 30-100 dollars, i get to test out a lens, it will still be cheaper than buying one and then realising that i don't quite like it. I started this co-op after facing some frustration in trying to loan a 400mm lens. As blurblock says, to put it bluntly, if u can't agree with my terms, then look elsewhere. I have nothing to lose by turning away a customer.
- Status