Dishonest Japanese American Company

Katalin Horvath McClure wrote:

I am sorry, but it seems impossible for me to comprehend the situation. Could you explain once and for all, clearly, what is the relationship between you, the agency, the Japanese-American company and the client - so far you mentioned these entities to be part of the deal.
Were you hired by an agency to interpret for the Japanese company's US branch office?
OR
Is the "agency" that you are referring to is in fact the Japanese company's US branch office?
AND Who is the "client", that you keep referring to?

Just to simplify things, the usual relationship is that there is the "end client" who needs the interpretation, so it hires an "agency" to find an interpreter. The agency then finds an interpreter and contracts him for the work. The interpreter goes to the end client's place and performs the interpretation job. The end client pays the agency (based on the terms stipulated in the contract between them), and the agency pays the interpreter (again, based on the terms stipulated in the contract between them, which is independent of the other contract between the agency and the end client).

You should be getting your payment from the agency. If you have a dispute with them, that should be settled based on the contract between the two of you.
If the agency has a dispute with the end client, that should be settled based on the contract between the agency and the end client.
Any complaints about quality should be handled on the basis of these contracts between the respective parties. Remember, you have no contractual relationship with the end client.

Katalin

Hi Miss Katalin,

I'm sorry about the delay. I got 4 interpretation assignments this week. I got also sick with a cold.

I will answer you shortly.


Thanks.

Yugoslavia