el-guapo
I have to say I'm with PeteM and Bandit here: there was at least enough room for confusion that each side could have believed that the terms of the agreement were slightly, but crucially, different.
All agreements - even extensive written ones - will to some extent include so-called tacit terms: terms that the parties didn't expressly agree to but which form part of the agreement. Often these are things that are so obvious no-one even thinks of them as terms of the agreement (or thinks to expressly agree them), or are so obscure that no-one thinks of them until some bizarre turn of events occurs. The fact that parties may after the fact disagree on what they genuinely intended would have happened in certain circumstances is what provides a huge amount of work for lawyers.
In this case, there was an existing agreement which, as several people have pointed out, had been fulfilled on both sides. The new arrangement was indeed a new agreement, but that doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum, and that the terms of the first agreement can't inform the terms of the second. For example, if I discuss terms with someone to wash my car and three weeks later I want him to do it again, unless we decide otherwise or the circumstances change in a material respect, the second agreement will be presumed to be on the same terms as the first. Even where there is a material change of circumstances, the terms will generally only be deemed to have been amended to the extent that the change indicates such an amendment.
Here, there was undoubtedly a change, and a material one. What was a two-way agreement became a tripartite one - as the venue was perfectly entitled to say no, for whatever reason (perhaps opening up more tablespace, or not having to pay his barmen overtime, or all sorts of other aspects that may or may not be valid). This opens up a lot of room for disagreement. There is an argument that, because it was providing a setting for your otherwise-private arrangement with someone else, the venue is entitled to some compensation. You would say - and this is once again a very compelling argument - that they got compensation from the bar staying active. The manager may well say that was not what he had in mind and assumed that the R3000 would be subject to the 15%, and that he would otherwise have shut you down .
My point, in a long, rambling, lecturelike way, is that one can surely see that there is a fairly strong argument in both directions. One may prefer one or the other, but the venue's argument is not so unreasonable that we can assume that the manager was trying to pull a fast one (I'm trying to avoid the assumption that he was just because he's a used-car salesman venue manager ? )
If this kind of dispute were going to court, it would be a close enough call that the parties would be well advised to settle it. That's what you did. The manager bad-mouthing you is accordingly totally unwarranted, and leaves a very sour taste in the mouth.
On the other hand, even if you don't mind not playing there again, sometimes the word of bigmouths gets around, so I think the suggestion of talking it out calmly is a wise one: not with a view to negotiating any further payment by you, but to salvaging the relationship: again it doesn't sound like his behaviour (at least before the badmouthing) is much more than an understandable disagreement as to terms, and shouldn't warrant writing him off as a scumbag who you'd never want to deal with again.
exsanguinator
No,no,no......youse all got it all wrong.
As i see it the band really wasnt bothered to play another set untill the money was offered.
Nothing to do with the owner,
i wouldve gone to the owner and asked how the night went at the pub sales, if he said"we killed it"i wouldve said "we could do another set for you for R3k"He surely wouldve said"ARE YOU MAL EKSĂ"
which i wouldve replied,"no probs we'll do a freebie for you, enjoy the extra drink sales and you owe us a favour"
The pub and club scene has always been one sided,dubiuos,dark and dingy when matters of the cash is concerned.
You had a chance to shine it to the owner and "give it" once, for all of us for a change,but instead did the boy scout thing and listened to what your parents taught you,and got a scolding,instead of maybe having a chance of walking out R6000 richer,or even shouted a free R3000 bar tab if the owner paid you R3k,
BassBoy
What, wait....you did a door deal and the venue still took 15% of the door money??? Please name this venue so i know NOT to get gigs there....
I realise that was part of your original agreement but damn, if a venue offered me that deal i would just walk away.
