Interested if this would be true?

[Vron]

Hi,

If you order some printing and the printer makes an error on the proof (but you don't spot it as what you sent was correct), say the proof is OK, then refuse to pay because there is an error the Courts will side with the printing company because the (wrong) proof was 'proofed' ?

I ask because someone has told me this is definitely the case and they have been to small claims court four times against customers and won. I would have thought in this case the printer would do the decent thing and not take someone to court if they buggered up the proof in the first place??

So the sanctioning of the proof means the customer has to suck up the printer's mistakes?

[Magic919]

What is the point of the proof? If the customers signs off acceptance, despite an error, what would you expect?

[skeeterm5]

Surely that is the point of sending the proof to the customer?

[Vron]

I agree and that is what he is saying I am just surprised that it basically means a printer can make an error but if the customer doesn't spot it then its the customer who is left high and dry.

[13m]

Vron said:

I agree and that is what he is saying I am just surprised that it basically means a printer can make an error but if the customer doesn't spot it then its the customer who is left high and dry.

I don't know if there is any case law, but if a printer types "Brian's plubming and hitting surfaces" when the email brief clearly says "Brian's plumbing and heating services" I'd be surprised if a district judge would find in favour of the printer, even if the customer doesn't spot it".

[Vron]

13m said:

Vron said:

I agree and that is what he is saying I am just surprised that it basically means a printer can make an error but if the customer doesn't spot it then its the customer who is left high and dry.

I don't know if there is any case law, but if a printer types "Brian's plubming and hitting surfaces" when the email brief clearly says "Brian's plumbing and heating services" I'd be surprised if a district judge would find in favour of the printer, even if the customer doesn't spot it".

But that's the point apparently they will if Brian hasn't noticed and signed off the proof with 'hitting' instead of 'heating' even if the initial order instruction was for 'heating'.

[13m]

Vron said:

13m said:

Vron said:

I agree and that is what he is saying I am just surprised that it basically means a printer can make an error but if the customer doesn't spot it then its the customer who is left high and dry.

I don't know if there is any case law, but if a printer types "Brian's plubming and hitting surfaces" when the email brief clearly says "Brian's plumbing and heating services" I'd be surprised if a district judge would find in favour of the printer, even if the customer doesn't spot it".

But that's the point apparently they will if Brian hasn't noticed and signed off the proof with 'hitting' instead of 'heating' even if the initial order instruction was for 'heating'.

I remain to be convinced of that.

[miniman]

So, the printer sends a proof to the customer.

The customer looks at it and says, "yes, this is what I want you to print".

The printer prints it.

The printer delivers to the customer as per the agreed proof.

The customer notices a mistake that was present in the proof.

Somehow it is the printer's responsibility?

Wow.

[All that jazz]

miniman said:

So, the printer sends a proof to the customer.

The customer looks at it and says, "yes, this is what I want you to print".

The printer prints it.

The printer delivers to the customer as per the agreed proof.

The customer notices a mistake that was present in the proof.

Somehow it is the printer's responsibility?

Wow.

I would tend to agree with this. Printer is there to print things as per instructions, not do your proofreading for you. If you want a proofreader then pay for one, unless that exact service is provided as part of the printing service.

[13m]

All that jazz said:

miniman said:

So, the printer sends a proof to the customer.

The customer looks at it and says, "yes, this is what I want you to print".

The printer prints it.

The printer delivers to the customer as per the agreed proof.

The customer notices a mistake that was present in the proof.

Somehow it is the printer's responsibility?

Wow.

I would tend to agree with this. Printer is there to print things as per instructions, not do your proofreading for you. If you want a proofreader then pay for one, unless that exact service is provided as part of the printing service.

Read the OP It was the printer who made the error, not the customer. The customer merely failed to notice the printer's error. It is not unreasonable for the customer to expect the printer to print what was originally requested.

[Sebring440]

Vron said:

Hi,

If you order some printing and the printer makes an error on the proof (but you don't spot it as what you sent was correct)

If what you sent was correct, then it will be correct in these "proofs" you talk about.

There is very rarely any typesetting done anymore, it's all either customer supplied artwork (usually a PDF) or cut'n'paste, if the printer is doing the page layouts for you. So (as outlined in the OP), these typos and spelling mistakes will be the fault of the customer, not the printer.

Indeed, there is rarely any "proofs" anymore, as the customer has supplied a print-ready PDF, so proofing is unnecessary.

Occasionally, if specific colours are important, then a colour proof may be requested. This is easy enough with digital printing -- just print one off and show it to the customer. If the job is to be litho-printed however, it's a very expensive option to have a wet-proof provided, and because of this very few customers ask for this.

But in today's industry, spelling mistakes and typos originate with the customer.

[Vron]

In the example that has created the question it was a photo with some branding on. The printer reversed the photo from the one supplied by the customer on the proof (which was not readily obvious as the branding is small and the picture was symmetrical) but now the branding reads backwards.

Printer says tough that's how the proof was - should have spotted their mistake before OK-ing it.

I think this is a bit harsh and some sort of compromise could have been reached but then the court example was trotted out.

[Riley Blue]

Vron said:

Hi,

If you order some printing and the printer makes an error on the proof (but you don't spot it as what you sent was correct)...

I don't understand why you wouldn't spot an error because you hadn't made it. Surely the whole point of being sent a proof is to enable you to check for all errors; spelling, punctuation, colour, lay out etc. no matter who caused them.

[Vron]

I think it was because as everything was checked before it was emailed to the printer it was more the layout / design format that was of interest and as it was presumably a simple cut and paste job from supplied files then there wouldn't be any spelling errors etc.

[Sebring440]

Vron said:

In the example that has created the question it was a photo with some branding on. The printer reversed the photo from the one supplied by the customer on the proof (which was not readily obvious as the branding is small and the picture was symmetrical) but now the branding reads backwards.

Definitely the customer's fault in the example you mention. I don't really understand why the printer "reversed" the photo (where in the production process would anyone "reverse" the artwork?)

But, whatever, the customer obviously spotted the "mistake" in the finished product, why did he/she not spot it in the proof?

Anyway, it's all conjecture, and luckily for the OP, nothing do do with him and nothing he has to worry about.

[mattley]

Sebring440 said:

Vron said:

Hi,

If you order some printing and the printer makes an error on the proof (but you don't spot it as what you sent was correct)

If what you sent was correct, then it will be correct in these "proofs" you talk about.

There is very rarely any typesetting done anymore, it's all either customer supplied artwork (usually a PDF) or cut'n'paste, if the printer is doing the page layouts for you. So (as outlined in the OP), these typos and spelling mistakes will be the fault of the customer, not the printer.

Indeed, there is rarely any "proofs" anymore, as the customer has supplied a print-ready PDF, so proofing is unnecessary.

Occasionally, if specific colours are important, then a colour proof may be requested. This is easy enough with digital printing -- just print one off and show it to the customer. If the job is to be litho-printed however, it's a very expensive option to have a wet-proof provided, and because of this very few customers ask for this.

But in today's industry, spelling mistakes and typos originate with the customer.

This is rubbish.

Customers send in all sorts of 'print ready' crap, text embedded in jpegs, layouts created from a phone photo of a gif of a teatowl and the rest.

Not that it matters in this case.



Regardless of who did what, A proof is sent to client for sign off.

the client signs it off, the work is done. That's it. end of.

[Vron]

Haha !

Well I wouldn't be going to court over £16 and the printer had been paid before any proofs were sent.

I just find it incredible that a print company would take someone to court over not paying for prints that they had caused the error on during preparation of the proofs and thought it was a bit of billy bulst.

[Jasandjules]

If a client approves something then complains it is defective, it is likely that payment would still be required yes.

[Sebring440]

mattley said:

This is rubbish.

Customers send in all sorts of 'print ready' crap, text embedded in jpegs, layouts created from a phone photo of a gif of a teatowl and the rest.
Regardless of who did what, A proof is sent to client for sign off.
the client signs it off, the work is done. That's it. end of.

You're agreeing with me!

Vron said:

Haha !

Well I wouldn't be going to court over £16 and the printer had been paid before any proofs were sent.

What "printer"? You stated quite clearly in your OP that:

Vron said:

I ask because someone has told me this is definitely the case

So this has obviously been a pub discussion. Why are you so concerned about it?

[Vron]

I'm not concerned I was just seeking clarification as to if it was true what he was saying: that if a customer accepts the proof even if the printer has made the proof wrong, they will take the customer to court for payment and be successful as the proof is final regardless of what the customer sent in.

There is no court case over the £16 although the prints are wrong, payment was made at the time of ordering .

This is how the discussion came about and I couldn't believe it was true if the print company was the source of the error in the proof.

Edited by Vron on Wednesday 7th September 21:42