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

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#61

Post by jstalin »

dfxm12 wrote: post #51
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There certainly is a contract, even if it was oral, the question is what were the terms of the contract. Likely there were no terms dealing with what happens if there is no payment.

Re: Website Impounded

#62

Post by dfxm12 »

jstalin wrote: post #61
dfxm12 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There certainly is a contract, even if it was oral, the question is what were the terms of the contract. Likely there were no terms dealing with what happens if there is no payment.

Do you know for a fact? This is a San Francisco based company working with a German company. If they were both US based, you'd be correct for sure.

Re: Website Impounded

#63

Post by dhimes »

joshcrews wrote: post #38

Freelancers and agencies: consider having all work prepaid. Your fears may say that clients won't go for it, but they are going for it with other agencies/consultants, and in other professions this is a mainstream way of doing business. Government and huge corporate sales might not go for it, but you should be adding a 0 to the end of your price quotes to them as compensation.

That wouldn't work for me as a client: I've dealt wit scummy freelancers, too.

You could consider going through an agency- one that offers the ability to (1) escrow money, (2) keep a written record of agreements, and (3) provide mediation. There are costs to this, but, at least until you trust each other, they may be the way to go.

Re: Website Impounded

#64

Post by jstalin »

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…

Conversion might work too. Of course, any suit would probably go after them using as many legal theories as possible. Tortious interference comes into play when you are purposely trying to interfere with someone else's business arrangements, either those already existing or those expected to occur. There's a difference between taking someone's site down for non-payment and putting up a statement saying that X Company doesn't pay its bills that X Company has bad morals. Corporate defamation would be another that I would add to the list.

Of course, then there's the practical reality of suing a company in Germany from SF.

Re: Website Impounded

#65

Post by pasbesoin »

I did some work for a family member and their business partners, at a time when they were in great financial straights, and eventually got stiffed by them (the partners outweighed the family member -- no problem with the latter).

Get paid in a timely fashion!

If this is somehow "inconvenient" for the other party... they are already not valuing your contribution. Walk away.

Trust your intuition, too. If something "feels off", it probably is. I had that feeling early on, with those partners. I stayed in it for the sake of the family member (no regrets, from that perspective).

P.S. To clarify, they pulled through and ended up doing ok. At which time, they stiffed me. It was not a matter of their failure.

Re: Website Impounded

#66

Post by mediascreen »

mgkimsal wrote: post #28
EToS wrote: post #13

I can empathise with this a lot, but would not recommend going this far, if nothing other than for your own reputation and professionalism. Other clients could see this without fully understanding the situation, potentially losing business. In previous cases ive been involved in, taking down the site sending in debt collectors is often the easiest and cleanest method of getting back your money.

" if nothing other than for your own reputation and professionalism"... And the professionalism of fitnesssf - of not paying their vendors - gets swept under the rug for dozens of other vendors to have to discover on their own, individually, in silence. Great. "Professionalism" really has to work both ways. If you want me to treat you professionally, treat me professionally. What lines does someone have to cross befo…

While I can understand the frustration, I would argue that professionalism does not have to work both ways. If your client acts unprofessionally, you should still act professionally. Try conventional ways to reclame the what you are owed and if all else fails, take the site down - possibly with a small notice that says something like "Site offline until payment in full".

What OP did is illegal in many countries in Europe and from what I understand probably in Germany as well. It doesn't matter if the statements are true, it's still defamation. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stg...

Re: Website Impounded

#67

Post by jessaustin »

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.

Intentionally increasing the attack surface of the product you deliver is not ethical. It's unlikely any developer in the situation you describe has tested the time bomb functionality well enough to exclude the possibility that an attacker could exploit it, either before or after the payment date or the cancellation patch. An aspect of the Hippocratic Oath applies here.

The case described in TFA seems better, since the developer retained possession of legitimate control mechanisms, and used those in technically legitimate ways. (That is, updating the content and functionality served at a URL is a legitimate activity that occurs regularly.) In effect he's more of an unpaid service provider than an unpaid IT contractor in this case. No one would expect their phone to keep working without paying the phone bill, and until he turns over control of the site he should be expected to use that control. It's not like he's using a backdoor here.

Re: Website Impounded

#68

Post by jstalin »

dfxm12 wrote: post #62
jstalin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There certainly is a contract, even if it was oral, the question is what were the terms of the contract. Likely there were no terms dealing with what happens if there is no payment.

Do you know for a fact? This is a San Francisco based company working with a German company. If they were both US based, you'd be correct for sure.

You might not realize that just sending an email to a design company saying "Please design us a web site and we'll pay you $500" creates a contract (assuming the design company responds and says "ok!"). I doubt the design company would have gotten started without any kind of price term being set.

Re: Website Impounded

#69

Post by duaneb »

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…

> 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?

I mean, I'm a small fish compared to this guy, but I always have the site up and running before hand. Most of the time, I just outright buy the domain and transfer domain rights. This is exactly the kind of thing I do when the contract is violated- that is, when I deliver on my end, and there is a functional site, but they didn't pay.

What I'm saying is, I think you're assuming too much about the nature of how this guy does business. Money isn't about trust, it's about contracts; trust is just what gets the contract signed.

Post reply on HN