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

A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

joseph-smith.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

#111

Post by WhitneyLand »

ecb_penguin wrote: post #104
reaperducer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I’d be wary of hiring the developer even if he’s in the right. If you pay him, you'll have no problems. You were planning to pay, weren't you?

Why are you responding with superficial takes? Are you trolling? It's not complicated... I don't trust the judgement of someone that behaves this way. I have no idea what the contract said, or who is in the right. All I know is I'm not going to take the chance that they don't agree with the contract and now I'm litigating on Facebook....

Yes, this was exactly my point.

Re: A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

#112

Post by jlokier »

IAmBroom wrote: post #96
jlokier wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is it wasn't deliberate. They might not even know it's dissolved yet. It's dissolved by "compulsory strike-off", which means the registrar did it as a penalty for late filing of accounts about 4 months after their due date, and failing to send an email saying "the company is still required" to the registrar, which is enough to prevent the dissolution. It happened before in 2021 to this company. The company w…

> Restoring a company also restores its liabilities (debts), so it's clear they were not doing it in 2021 to get out of debts. Was it clear that wasn't the reason they were not doing it, or was it clear that the reason they were not doing it was to get out of debts?

They did it, so both of those are ruled out by context.

That's how I talk, and admittedly some people find how I talk confusing when I think it's clear. Thanks for the amusing heads up on language interpretation!

In pseudo-code: (clear (not (eq (reason for doing it) (to get out of debts))))).

Re: A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

#113

Post by reaperducer »

ecb_penguin wrote: post #103
reaperducer wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it more like when a restaurant doesn't pay the lease on their kitchen equipment and the kitchen equipment company comes and puts giant unremovable orange stickers on the restaurant windows letting the owner and the world know that the equipment inside is their property and must be surrendered or legal action will be taken.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: A web developer posted a payment shaming message on their client's site

#114

Post by tracker1 »

jlokier wrote: post #79
tracker1 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the client's url if they didn't pay for it.

In the case of a URL it might be. If the domain is registered with the client named as the formal owner, the client may well be the owner even if they haven't paid for it yet.

Then the client can move the DNS for the domain and use a server they control and have paid for.
Post reply on HN