Check what the agreement covers, including any mistakes that were yours, and do those changes without charge. For the rest, name the price and the option that costs nothing, and ask the client to choose before you start. In our judgment, clear terms at the moment of choice are easier to accept than a surprise invoice later.
One more small thing
You write website copy for a small physiotherapy clinic. Your agreement covers three rounds of changes. Round three is done, and the practice manager writes: “Thanks, almost there! Just a few last tweaks. Could you swap the opening paragraph, rewrite the services page and add a page about parking? Should only take a minute.”
Some of the list may be your own errors, such as a misspelled therapist’s name. Some of it is new work. If you say yes to everything, you absorb it. If you say no to everything, you may be wrong about part of it and sound rigid. The reply needs to sort the list before it answers.
Why unclear scope can cost you
A meta-analysis of psychological contract breach found that a perceived broken promise was linked to seven of the eight work outcomes it examined (all but actual turnover), with feelings of violation and mistrust. It studied employees’ perceptions of breach by their employers, so applying it to a client who thought a change was included is an inference. It does suggest why precision matters: the client who feels you have gone back on something may weigh it heavily.
Scope research points in a similar direction from the other side. A study that combined a literature review, expert interviews and a survey of software practitioners found that factors behind scope creep were negatively associated with project success. It concerns software teams and shows association, not a fee or a wording. It does support agreeing in advance how additions are handled.
The Queensland government’s guidance for small businesses says that if a job changes, you should issue a revised quote. That is the practical version: when scope changes, the price is restated before the work begins.
Sort first, then reply
Open the agreement and your revision log. Put each requested change in one of three groups, then add the free option you can offer. Write the reply from the groups.
- Yours to fix: errors in what you delivered, such as a wrong name or a missed instruction. Do these without charge.
- Covered by the agreement: anything the terms say is included, even if it is late in the project.
- New work: changes that need another round, with a price you can state and keep.
- The free option: for example, choosing between existing drafts together, if that is genuinely available.
The reply that blurs the line
This draft sounds accommodating. It does not say what is covered or what the extra work costs, so the client has no way to choose, and you may resent the work you agree to. In our judgment, it can also teach the client that a polite push moves the limit.
“Hi Mei, sure, I can have a look at these! We’ve technically done all three rounds, but I’ll see what I can squeeze in. Let me know if it grows and we’ll figure something out.”
The reply that sorts and prices
This draft separates the mistake from the new work and states the price before anything is done. It offers a free alternative so the client is not forced into paying, and it asks for a choice. Do not hint that the fee might disappear if they push, because that makes the fee conditional on pressure.
“Hi Mei, thanks. The misspelled name of Dr. Okafor in the team section was my mistake, so I’ll fix that now at no charge. We’ve used the three rounds in the agreement, so the new opening paragraph, the rewritten services page and the parking page would be a fourth round at $90. Or I can go through the three versions of the opening paragraph with you and help you pick one, at no charge. Tell me which you’d prefer before I start any paid changes.”
If they push back or go quiet
Mei may say it is not fair to charge for tweaks. You can acknowledge the feeling and keep the terms: “I understand it feels small. The agreement set three rounds, and this is a fourth, so it’s $90. If you’d rather keep to the agreement, the free option is still open.” If she says she is unhappy with the work, ask what specifically is missing, since that may be a defect you should fix.
If there is no reply, send one reminder with the same choice, and do not start the paid work in the meantime. If she insists, you can decide whether to make an exception, and call it one: “I’ll include the parking page this time, as a one-off, and the rest would be a fourth round.” Name the exception so it does not become the new default.
“I hear that it feels like a small ask. I’m keeping to what the agreement says so the pricing is the same for everyone. I’ll do the name fix today, and the fourth round starts once you confirm the $90.”
What the evidence does not show
The contract-breach meta-analysis is about employees, and the scope-creep research is about software projects. Neither sets a fair price for an extra round or tests an email like this one. The clinic, Mei and the $90 are invented, and your own contract may say something different from the one imagined here.
This advice does not apply when the agreement itself is unclear or disputed, when a client alleges a serious defect, or when a formal dispute process or legal advice is the appropriate route. The practice linked below uses a different project and different terms so you can try the same sorting step.
The example wording and the order of steps are practical guidance, not research findings, and nothing here shows that Leetsoul or these steps cause better outcomes.
Practice replying to an out-of-scope request
Try your response to a fictional conversation, then read the guidance and decide what you would change.
Open the practiceThree starter practices are free. Soulful opens the full library.Sources and limits
The clinic, the client and the $90 round are fictional. The sources concern workplace promises and software projects, and they do not show that this email prevents disputes or that any price is fair.
- The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: a meta-analysis
A meta-analysis found perceived breach linked to seven of eight work outcomes, with affect mediating. It studies employees’ perceptions of breach by their employers, so the client case is an inference.
- The impact of scope creep on project success: an empirical investigation
A literature review, expert interviews and a practitioner survey found scope creep factors negatively associated with software project success. Association only, software teams only.
- Preparing a business quote (Queensland Government)
Government guidance that says to issue a revised quote when a job changes and to state variations and revisions up front. Australian and trade-oriented, so check local contract rules.
Published by Leetsoul. Sources checked . Examples are fictional. Read our evidence approach.