Website Impounded

mischanix wrote: post #2

Archived the source for when this inevitably is reverted: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/4955465 The page embeds http://clients.frankjonen.com/fitnesssf in a frame.

Did you consult an attorney before doing this? I'm curious what the ramifications are. Back in my boutique days, we were stiffed several times, but I never wanted to pull a stunt like this for fear of legal retribution.

Instead, I hired some very good collectors, and had a stipulation in my contract that the customer was required to pay collection fees for invoices over 60 days late.

This resulted in my company getting paid in full all but twice.

Re: Website Impounded

#8

Post by nobodysfool » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 7:32 PM UTC

I'm pretty sure calling them 'thieves' is libel.

Re: Website Impounded

#9

Post by damm » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 7:38 PM UTC

seyfarth wrote: post #6

This is unprofessional.

I would suggest that what the original customer did was theft. They would still be reaping the profits of their thievery had not stopped it.

Legality is the hard part, which is likely why this company went the way it did. Most people would prefer a 'This site is down due to non-payment' or a 'we are down'.

That's trying to swim upstream without a paddle, this is slippery enough without trying to on the right side.

Re: Website Impounded

#10

Post by etchalon » Thu, Feb 14, 2013, 7:38 PM UTC

seyfarth wrote: post #6

This is unprofessional.

And yet so very, very awesome.