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

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: Website Impounded

#71

Post by jstalin »

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 don't pay the mechanic, the mechanic doesn't get to put a sign out front saying "BOB DOESN'T PAY HIS BILLS. HE'S IMMORAL!"

Re: Website Impounded

#72

Post by analog »

jstalin wrote: post #64
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…

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…

"Corporate defamation would be another that I would add to the list."

It's not defamation if it's true of course.

Re: Website Impounded

#73

Post by iamtyce »

chris_wot wrote: post #37
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.

It's morally wrong not to pay your bills. If they are being shamed, tough luck. Pay the one you owe money to.

I absolutely agree. I've been in this position as a frontend dev many, many times. And that's WITH a decent contract, no bad gut feeling, great communication throughout. Ultimately, I can't control whether a client feels like paying my invoice or not. I commend this developer, he's done something I've always wanted to do.

Re: Website Impounded

#74

Post by carterparks »

jstalin wrote: post #71
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 don't pay the mechanic, the mechanic doesn't get to put a sign out front saying "BOB DOESN'T PAY HIS BILLS. HE'S IMMORAL!"

If you don't pay the mechanic, you don't get your car. If you don't pay the webmaster, you don't get your website.

Re: Website Impounded

#75

Post by tptacek »

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…

Is the idea here tortious interference w/o contract, with the designers interfering with business relationships between SF Fitness and their customers? That makes more sense.

Re: Website Impounded

#76

Post by greaterweb »

gdiaz wrote: post #70

Looks like they took all their fitnesssf facebook pages down. https://www.evernote.com/shard/s15/sh/d1096855-0c3a-4ed6-a87... lots of people telling them to pay their invoices. And the owner trying to do damage control by telling people their website got hacked.

This is an unfortunate side effect of what this developer has set in motion. I don't know enough about either side to make a determination of who is right or wrong, but neither do the people harassing this business on Facebook.

From his Behance page: "Half a year's worth of work, weeks of waiting on end because they couldn't find the fingers at the end of their arms and in the end they try to screw me over by ignoring the invoices. "

That a pretty aggressive play in words. I suspect if he is really looking for "justice" he'd gain a lot more support in exposing the entire situation, not just some pretty screen shots and shouting about unpaid invoices.

I for one am genuinely interested in learning more about this, both sides preferably.

Re: Website Impounded

#77

Post by subpixel »

carterparks wrote: post #74
jstalin wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't pay the mechanic, the mechanic doesn't get to put a sign out front saying "BOB DOESN'T PAY HIS BILLS. HE'S IMMORAL!"

If you don't pay the mechanic, you don't get your car. If you don't pay the webmaster, you don't get your website.

I recently saw a truck with (nice, magnetic?) signs on the doors warning other drivers not to do business with a local mortgage company and calling them out for bait-and-switch tactics. It seemed pretty effective.

Re: Website Impounded

#78

Post by analog »

mediascreen wrote: post #66
mgkimsal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 Eu…

Have you got a plain english source for the "defamation even if true" claim? I know that truth is certainly a defence against defamation in the UK, which has a well deserved reputation as an easy place to sue for defamation.

Re: Website Impounded

#79

Post by dfxm12 »

jstalin wrote: post #68
dfxm12 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I know this is the case if both parties are in the US.

However, these are two parties from two different countries, each with different laws and jurisdictions. Do you know enough about contract laws in the US and Germany to assert this as the truth?

Re: Website Impounded

#80

Post by dhimes »

mediascreen wrote: post #66
mgkimsal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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 Eu…

Furthermore, we have to remember that we are only hearing one side of the story. I believe it...tentatively.
Post reply on HN