17 ms·

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 m

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 is looking unprofessional for nothing.

JohnGB 9mo ago
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.
- ecb_penguin 9mo ago
  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...
  - btasker 9mo ago
    > 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 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 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.
  - qingcharles 9mo ago
    I've done tons of litigation in Small Claims in the USA. It's not how you think. I don't know what state lets you file for $50. It can easily reach $400 or more, especially because you might have to pay the sheriff to serve the defendant. Most Small Claims in the USA allows the other party to bring an entire team of professional lawyers to destroy you. (Cook County for instance bars lawyers only for cases under $1500 IIRC)
- qingcharles 9mo ago
  When I had a dispute with a client over coding work my lawyer said: "If this goes to court, the only winners and me and their lawyer. We get to take another vacation this year." I've always heeded that advice.
mkl95 9mo ago
It looks like the company's owners didn't give a simple heads up to their providers before dissolving it. In my eyes, that's way worse than what this particular provider has done. If the sums aren't large, they might lose money by going to court.
- jlokier 9mo ago
  The company owner didn't dissolve it, the registrar did as a penalty for not filing accounts within about 4 months of the due date. The owner might not even know it's dissolved yet.
WhitneyLand 9mo ago
Yeah, I’d be wary of hiring the developer even if he’s in the right.
- reaperducer 9mo ago
  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?
  - ecb_penguin 9mo ago
    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....
    - WhitneyLand 9mo ago
      Yes, this was exactly my point.
SoftTalker 9mo ago
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.
- reaperducer 9mo ago
  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.
  - ecb_penguin 9mo ago
    [flagged]
    - reaperducer 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - ecb_penguin 8mo ago
        [flagged]
shadowgovt 9mo ago
Counterpoint: airing petty grievances on the Internet has proven, time and again, to be a remarkably effective way of getting the grievance addressed by an otherwise inaccessible third party. Evidence: just about every post on Hacker News about Google breaking that eventually attracts a personal followup from a Googler who reads HN. If you're angry about not getting paid and your client has given you control over part of their public-facing persona, I can definitely see using that control to make it known that you are in a state of disunion with them. I can even see it being done with no harm to your reputation because other future potential clients know they will be able to pay you.
- ecb_penguin 9mo ago
  [flagged]

JohnGB 9mo ago

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.

ecb_penguin 9mo ago
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...
- btasker 9mo ago
  > 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 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 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.
- qingcharles 9mo ago
  I've done tons of litigation in Small Claims in the USA. It's not how you think. I don't know what state lets you file for $50. It can easily reach $400 or more, especially because you might have to pay the sheriff to serve the defendant. Most Small Claims in the USA allows the other party to bring an entire team of professional lawyers to destroy you. (Cook County for instance bars lawyers only for cases under $1500 IIRC)
qingcharles 9mo ago
When I had a dispute with a client over coding work my lawyer said: "If this goes to court, the only winners and me and their lawyer. We get to take another vacation this year." I've always heeded that advice.

mkl95 9mo ago

It looks like the company's owners didn't give a simple heads up to their providers before dissolving it. In my eyes, that's way worse than what this particular provider has done. If the sums aren't large, they might lose money by going to court.

jlokier 9mo ago
The company owner didn't dissolve it, the registrar did as a penalty for not filing accounts within about 4 months of the due date. The owner might not even know it's dissolved yet.

WhitneyLand 9mo ago

Yeah, I’d be wary of hiring the developer even if he’s in the right.

reaperducer 9mo ago
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?
- ecb_penguin 9mo ago
  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....
  - WhitneyLand 9mo ago
    Yes, this was exactly my point.

SoftTalker 9mo ago

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.

reaperducer 9mo ago
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.
- ecb_penguin 9mo ago
  [flagged]
  - reaperducer 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - ecb_penguin 8mo ago
      [flagged]

shadowgovt 9mo ago

Counterpoint: airing petty grievances on the Internet has proven, time and again, to be a remarkably effective way of getting the grievance addressed by an otherwise inaccessible third party. Evidence: just about every post on Hacker News about Google breaking that eventually attracts a personal followup from a Googler who reads HN. If you're angry about not getting paid and your client has given you control over part of their public-facing persona, I can definitely see using that control to make it known that you are in a state of disunion with them. I can even see it being done with no harm to your reputation because other future potential clients know they will be able to pay you.

ecb_penguin 9mo ago
[flagged]