- Mike Shainline
- September 21, 2013 - 23:05
Time for an update. Lets start with seeing a copy of the signed contract. Does one signature constitute a "signed contract"? The picture he claims the BMAS had while he was working on the mural wasn't completed until he had left Botwood and returned to St John's His first rendition, submitted before coming to Botwood was rejected as it included features (windmills & a quilt pattern) unrelated to the Cottage Hospital theme. His promise to have a revision in hand on arrival in Botwood was unfulfilled. Unfortunately, with the site preparation complete, accomodation arrangemets made and a delay in the hoped for start date, the board accepted a further promise that the rendition would be completed while he worked on the lower section of the mural Bottomline, is mistakes were made in dealing with our first artist/project. But, don't ever think that the artist wasn't equally responsible for failing to meet the requirements. The court ruled infavor of his receiving full payment based on what was considered to be (not a signed contract) a "sales agreement". As an explanation in ruling in favor of the plaintif, the judge explained that if he had sold us a vacuum cleaner and we had failed to return it then payment is due. We had returned the rendition, however failed to cover the mural. The court awarded(?) the rendition to BMAS, and $5000.00 final payment to Michael. The rendition is for sale. Any offers?
- Kathy Sheehy
- April 23, 2011 - 06:39
Stop wasting tax payers dollars. A contract is a contract. Case closed
- April 21, 2011 - 07:53
I find the vast majority of local artwork to be very "cartooon-ish" in style.
- Bernie Ball
- April 19, 2011 - 12:48
This makes me sad. ...that mural looks very nice. It's modern, sleek, sophisticated. They must have agreed on a design before he started painting... right? So I wonder why they are withholding pay-- a secret agenda? They should just pay him. That would be the rational, responsible thing to do.