Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Website Impounded

fitnesssf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#41

Post by danielweber »

damm wrote: post #9
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.

I have no pity for fitnesssf, but that doesn't mean that the creator's actions are okay. (I'm not sure they aren't okay, either.)

Re: Website Impounded

#42

Post by chrismsnz »

PotatoEngineer wrote: post #32
EToS wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree entirely with this.. often i take 30% up front, 30% when prototyped, and final 40% payment upon delivery

Can you live on 60%? That is, how hard is it if a large customer decides to ignore that last payment?

Then it doesn't get delivered.

EDIT: Having the "finished" site on a test host (or even just a temporary DNS name) until the final payment seems like a shrewd move. The work is complete, but if you don't get final payment it doesn't go live.

Re: Website Impounded

#43

Post by greaterweb »

zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal."

There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts and work arrangement. Why was the site up in the first place if he was not paid in full?

"Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom software they write for companies, with an easy to install patch that gets released when that company pays it's bill."

Wow, this is just scary. The work relationship is doomed if the developer doesn't trust the customer or vice versa. If you are in the business of making money through software development, be skilled not only in developing but in assembling contracts and project plans that protect your interests.

Re: Website Impounded

#45

Post by minusthebrandon »

fencepost wrote: post #22
fencepost wrote: post #18

My suspicion is that this is being done because it's international. If Fitness SF is as I suspect in San Francisco while the developer is in Europe, collections will be a real headache. Sue? Sure, probably where you are, probably win. Then collect from the European presence of a California fitness club. I see a potential disconnect. Sue in California? How much is THAT going to cost someone based in Europe? And really…

Editing on a phone is quirky, so further detail: the AdWeek profile lists him as being in Germany. Also, of all the cities in the USA, Fitness SF was unable to find a designer they liked in San Francisco ? Please.

They probably couldn't find a designer in SF that charged LESS than the designer in Germany. A company that doesn't pay invoices tends to go for the cheapest option.

Re: Website Impounded

#46

Post by rglover »

Hand down my favorite phrase from our contract:

At the designated point in the project and after final payment has been received, we will present you with all files pertaining to your project.

Re: Website Impounded

#47

Post by delwin »

mischanix wrote: post #40
feverishaaron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 getti…

Ah, I'm not the one who did this; and as an American, I never would--easier to resolve it more traditionally. However, the client being American and the firm being European, I can see how this became the option of choice.

That seems a little prejudiced. I know Americans who would do this. That doesn't make them less American. I know Germans who wouldn't. That doesn't make them not German. No generalizations, thank you.

Re: Website Impounded

#48

Post by ultramundane8 »

greaterweb wrote: post #43
zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

So let's say that the customer always pays on time and the developer did build this sort of time bomb. (And let's assume no technical knowledge on the part of the customer. Therefore, the time bomb is never discovered.)

Are you saying that the relationship was negatively affected?

I would claim that the developer could mistrust the customer without elsewhere mistreating them.

Re: Website Impounded

#49

Post by mgkimsal »

greaterweb wrote: post #43
zdw wrote: post #35

I don't see the problem with this. People deserve to be paid for the work they do, and time they expend, which is irreplaceable. If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal. Similarly, I've met software developers who set timebombs in custom softwa…

"If you take your car to the shop and can't pay for the work to be done, they put a mechanic's lien on it, and impound the car until the work is paid for. This is no different from that method, which is totally legal." There is a big difference, actually. There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. This developer may have exposed himself to a level of risk based on his own contracts a…

"There is pretty standard protocol and work agreements for automotive repair. "

We don't know the specifics of the agreement in question, but there's a general overarching 'protocol' in the services economy - I do work for you and you pay me. If you don't pay me, and your 'protocol' is to ignore my invoices... you reap what you sow.

Re: Website Impounded

#50

Post by Jemaclus »

delwin wrote: post #47
mischanix wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I'm not the one who did this; and as an American, I never would--easier to resolve it more traditionally. However, the client being American and the firm being European, I can see how this became the option of choice.

That seems a little prejudiced. I know Americans who would do this. That doesn't make them less American. I know Germans who wouldn't. That doesn't make them not German. No generalizations, thank you.

It's not a generalization. He's saying that since he's American, he's "local" and can challenge it in American courts, while the firm who built this site is European and cannot (as easily). It's much more difficult for a European to sue an American company for failed payments.
Post reply on HN