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

51–60 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#51

Post by dfxm12 »

tptacek wrote: post #36
jstalin wrote: post #11

That web designer turned a contract issue into a potential tortious interference issue -- against him.

Is the claim here really tortious interference? Or is it conversion? Or something else? Taking down a deadbeat client's website if they're entirely in breach of the contract that created it seems like it would be reasonable, but I agree that hosting a new website in its place to broadcast a grievance is probably a bad idea. I had fairly complicated Python and C code I'm reviewing coming out of my ears so I did some r…

In a perfect world, there would be clauses in the contract explaining what happens when there is a failure to pay.

Of course, we have no idea if there even is a contract.

Re: Website Impounded

#52

Post by mischanix »

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.

I was referring to the fact that the contract was international, not to the nationalities of either party.

Re: Website Impounded

#53

Post by mgkimsal »

justincormack wrote: post #26
fencepost wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Design is a global market to a large extent, there is no reason why they should choose a local one.

There's plenty of reasons to choose local though:

1. Keep money in the local economy. 2. Build a local network. 3. Have face to face meetings to get your ideas across more quickly - whiteboarding, seeing facial reactions to comps, hands-on testing, etc.

I've done remote work, and I've done work with clients in my local area. There's reasons for both, but most clients I work with want local, or at least want the ability to meet face to face on occasion. The few that didn't want to (or even declined attempts to meet f2f) either skipped out on their bill, or were wanting extremely commodity services (install wordpress on my server, fix this javascript error, etc).

Re: Website Impounded

#54

Post by swampthing »

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.

Might be mis-reading, but I took his comment to mean just that it would be harder for an international company to resolve this through the court system here in the US (and thus other approaches become more attractive).

Re: Website Impounded

#55

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Website Impounded

#56

Post by mgkimsal »

rickdale wrote: post #17

I am sorry, but this guy is way out of line here. Legally I have no idea, but morally, I do. I mean, go to the place and talk to someone. Or take down the site. Don't start a campaign for your feelings. edit: On second thought I was eating a restaurant when their televisions turned black and the screen came up with a pay your bill now notice. Every screen in the restaurant. So I guess maybe this is the tactic.

At what point do you stop providing the service (or allowing the deadbeat client to continue to get the benefit of the previously provided service)? 1 week? 1 month? 1 year?

The TV signal issue - how many "you didn't pay" emails and phone calls and written bills did they get before it was turned off? And consider this - if the TV just went dead, people would be calling/complaining "my service is dead!" This is a faster way of telling them why it's dead. The fact that someone was broadcasting to their customers was their own fault if they got embarrassed by it. I would hazard to guess they were probably only licensed for one set, and they were splitting/copying the signal to multiple TVs as well.

Re: Website Impounded

#57

Post by greaterweb »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #48
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

My point is such that a "time bomb" of sorts would not be necessitated if the developer makes sufficient efforts to protect him/herself with good business practices.

That same client who pays on time and upholds his end of the agreement is left at risk through no fault of his own. Just doesn't seem fair in my opinion.

Will a dispute happen even with well authored contracts and business plans? Absolutely, but properly scoping the work, delivering to a schedule and keeping open communication with the client will greatly minimize that risk.

Re: Website Impounded

#58

Post by chc »

mgkimsal wrote: post #27
digitalengineer wrote: post #15

I don't get it. A legally binding contract was signed before they took on the job, right? Doesn't that offer legal protection?

And 'legal' protection means waiting years in courts, then potentially years more to collect on that judgement (assuming you actually win). I don't know the story behind this, but they may have already waited months before taking this sort of action. And as someone else said - really? An SF-based company contracted with someone in Germany to do their website? Seems to be they were doing this on purpose, to avoid payi…

Does small claims court really take years? I haven't needed to directly interact with it before, but that was not my impression from acquaintances who have to go there quite often.

Re: Website Impounded

#59

Post by codegeek »

ultramundane8 wrote: post #48
greaterweb wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

"let's assume no technical knowledge on the part of the customer. Therefore, the time bomb is never discovered"

That is a big assumption to make. Just because the customer is not technical does not necessarily mean that time bomb could not be discovered at some point in future. Probability might be low but you can never be 100% sure.

Re: Website Impounded

#60

Post by jessaustin »

R_Edward wrote: post #33
digitalengineer wrote: post #15

I don't get it. A legally binding contract was signed before they took on the job, right? Doesn't that offer legal protection?

A contract is kind of like a speed limit sign. It may specify behaviors that are in violation, but it has no power on its own to enforce itself. About all it's really good for is to describe for a third party--a judge--the agreement between the signatories at the time they executed the contract. Even if one party to a legally binding contract sues another for failure to discharge his contractual responsibilities, and…

Yeah if you can't collect your invoice then collecting your judgment might also be a challenge. Unfortunately there is no real property involved to which a mechanic's lien could be attached. This is probably the best thing this guy could have done short of getting paid up front, or setting up some sort of escrow.
Post reply on HN