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

91–100 of 115 posts

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

#91

Post by reaperducer »

SoftTalker wrote: post #60
ecb_penguin wrote: post #29

I have no idea what the contract says, what was paid, or any of the other conversations they've had. All I see is someone complaining publicly about a private matter. When that happens, I assume they're wrong. Normal people don't air petty grievances on the internet. They use the courts and other mechanisms. According to another comment, the business is dissolved. They don't care if their site goes down. So this guy…

This strikes me as something like a landlord changing the locks when a tenant gets behind on the rent. In many jurisdictions this is illegal, as there exists a defined process for dealing with non-payment of rent: eviction.

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.

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

#92

Post by NikolaNovak »

EGreg wrote: post #30
NikolaNovak wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely don't know if this is a sarcastic/troll post or a honest one. I assume it's sarcasm, but I have seen people earnestly suggest such complex and orthogonal solutions to a solved problem, so I have to check (I neither up voted nor down voted fwiw. As sarcasm it's kind of funny. If genuine, I don't even know where to begin - our axiomatic frameworks may be too far apart:)

This is an honest one. There are not many reasons to use a cryptocurrency and a blockchain, but this is one of them. It models the incentives properly. In general - smart contracts can prevent a huge class of disputes, increasing clarity at scale and decreasing the costs of litigation after the fact.

Can you elaborate?

My thoughts:

* Typically, payment issues like this are at small scales - not a massive enterprise website for a multinational corporation, but a small businesses that need web presence.

* In such cases, scope management is key. Client typically underestimates the work required, so education and clear expectations are both a must and an uphill battle

* Anything that expands the scope without clear requirements tracing, risks derailing. Adding "tokens" and crypto, not just as a smart contract between web developer and business users, but with all the customers and users, seems like a huge expansion of scope, and likely orthogonal to the limited "web presence / small eCommerce" requirements

* Meanwhile, the traditional/boring commerce and law have this covered - a little bit of work ahead of time by the web developer to draft and sign appropriate contract / payment terms (which can and should be standardized once for all clients), can provide appropriate safety guardrails; in particular, far less overhead than building a whole new (possibly unbilled?) crypto/token facilities.

What are your thoughts on A/B comparison here?

Thanks for your time!

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

#93

Post by smt88 »

toast0 wrote: post #89
smt88 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DNS is generally prepaid. You can't sabotage services because you aren't being paid. For example, a landlord can't disable someone's prepaid internet when he stops receiving their rent. The remedy for failure to pay is to seek payment or sue, not to sabotage the client's business.

So if you paid me Jan 1 2025 for one year of DNS service and now it's Jan 1 2026 and you didn't pay me again, I'm supposed to keep serving your DNS? If the money runs out, the service turns off. That's not sabotage anymore than the phone company turning off your phone or the electric company turning off your power. Although phone and electricity may have regulated shutoff procedures.

That's not the scenario being described here. The registrar would handle all of that and release the domain if it weren't paid.

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

#95

Post by btasker »

ecb_penguin wrote: post #56
JohnGB wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say that as if the courts are a reasonable solution for most people. In many cases the cost and time render them useless and often cost more than the invoice that is due. In some jurisdictions you may recover this, but in many you can't.

You say that as if airing your problems on the internet is a reasonable solution for most people. We have small claims courts in every jurisdiction in the US. It costs $50 to file, and you do not need an attorney. The courts will review the contract and generally reach a reasonable decision. There's always a cost/benefit to things. I bet the courts have returned more money than Facebook posts have...

> We have small claims courts in every jurisdiction in the US. It costs $50 to file, and you do not need an attorney.

This particular example is in the UK though.

It's even easier here!

You can issue a Statutory Demand (https://www.gov.uk/statutory-demands) which gives the receiver 21 days to either pay or reach an agreement to pay. Failing to do that can lead to them being wound up.

If, for some reason, you wanted to go the small claims route instead, there's an (ageing) online service (https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome).

Unlike the US, the fee isn't a flat fee, and is tiered depending on the amount being claimed (still cheap though).

I've had to use both in the past.

The developer in this case really has no excuse for airing dirty laundry in public. If they're hosting and not being paid, by all means suspend the site, but don't deface it so there's a message about not being paid carrying the customer's branding.

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

#96

Post by IAmBroom »

jlokier wrote: post #75
KomoD wrote: post #17

This probably explains why they're not paying: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c... > Company status: Dissolved > Dissolved on 16 December 2025 His other company: > Company status: Liquidation People are now attacking the guy on Instagram because I guess the developer or someone, made a Tiktok video about it.

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?

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

#97

Post by IAmBroom »

lsaferite wrote: post #52
josefresco wrote: post #5

I build websites for a living and sometimes people don't pay their bills. Their website going down is usually not a big deal (sometimes they don't notice for months!). But their email, now THAT is a show stopper every time (instant payment).

Back when I used to work freelance, I learned that all my contracts needed to have a provision not releasing IP rights until final payment was made. This provides the legal stick to side-step going through a commercial contract dispute. You frequently run into companies wanting to pay fractions of amounts due and not having a strong incentive to hurry along a resolution. Instead, without IP assignment it becomes a co…

More unprofessional than buying services and refusing to pay for them?

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

#98

Post by [deleted] »

elevatortrim wrote: post #50
petercooper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, this is less of a problem, though it depends a lot on the contract between the company and the developer. Assuming nothing exotic, that the statement on the site is true (and not a malicious falsehood) and that if the hosting belongs to the end customer they did not revoke the developer's access (i.e. no unauthorised access occurred), then the developer is in a reasonable position legally. IANAL, of course…

So if I'm a builder, can I build a wall in front of your grocery store's door if you did not pay me, as long as I do not lie and I do not break in?

[deleted]

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

#99

Post by [deleted] »

elevatortrim wrote: post #50
petercooper wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, this is less of a problem, though it depends a lot on the contract between the company and the developer. Assuming nothing exotic, that the statement on the site is true (and not a malicious falsehood) and that if the hosting belongs to the end customer they did not revoke the developer's access (i.e. no unauthorised access occurred), then the developer is in a reasonable position legally. IANAL, of course…

So if I'm a builder, can I build a wall in front of your grocery store's door if you did not pay me, as long as I do not lie and I do not break in?

[deleted]

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

#100

Post by jkman »

smt88 wrote: post #87
ecb_penguin wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say anything about the legality... They asked how to block email. Both of these would work. There's no reason to respond to questions or points nobody is making.

You don't think there's a reason to say someone's illegal advice is illegal? OK.

How would it be illegal if it was, for example, explicitly listed as an option in the contract?
Post reply on HN