Failure to fulfil their obligations and refusal to pay back the money - page 12
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
All right, this seems to be a futile bickering, but we need to come to a constructive solution. First, let's deal with the issues:
1. Are you ready to give your money back?
2. Are you ready to continue working with this Expert Advisor?
3. Do you understand the TOR that was rewritten according to your scheme?
This is not the way things are done. There have to be guarantees.
Return both to the arbitration area
the cost of the job will now be equal to the final settlement amount
If no one wants to cheat, the work will be completed to the logical conclusion and therefore fully paid
In the event of difficulties in the process of completion and final payment, arbitration is available to you in the normal legal mode
Why not make a request in the section of the work something like this: work for _Techno_, removal of restrictions for the demo, the end of the work on the previously written terms of reference
and the amount to be paid is the previously agreed-upon 50%.
Once I understand its functionality, make sure it is possible to make no profit and then decide whether or not to follow the agreement, right? In the end, whether I get paid for my work or not will only depend on the decision. That's not the way it works. There have to be guarantees.
That's what I mean - by giving the other 50%, in this case, I lose any guarantees and leverage.
I agree. This is the downside of working outside the service, someone has to trust. Technically it could be any of us, but since the involvement of the public, then accuse me of not complying with some points of the terms of reference is easier than me to prove non-payment. So if I rely on your honesty, in case I don't pay I will lose a lot more in time and effort than you will lose $30.
All right, this seems to be a futile bickering, but we need to come to a constructive solution. First, let's deal with the issues:
1. Are you ready to give your money back?
2. Are you ready to continue working with this Expert Advisor?
3. Do you understand the TOR that has been rewritten in your scheme?
1) If you are willing to give the time back.
2) Yes, but what about the question of payment anyway? After all, I didn't ask for that much from the start, with me not changing the cost. And since the terms of reference raises a lot of questions then it is not the easiest. + I think it would be logical for this thread to be deleted. Delete it can if you ask the administration to do so. (As the author of the topic).
3) More or less, but if the question implies that I am ready to correct and clarify some points again after writing a revised TOR, then yes. I always finish to the logical end once I start the work.
Return both to the market area with arbitrage
the cost of the job will now be equal to the final settlement amount
If no one wants to cheat, the work will be finalised to the logical conclusion and therefore fully paid
in case of misunderstandings in the process of completing and final payment, arbitration is available to you in the normal legal mode
That's what I'm getting at if Techno doesn't want the money back.
I think it would be uncomfortable for both of us to cooperate.
But if Techno is interested in continuing to work, I am ready to work through the service
Opinion. The topic is edifying, and should not be removed. It is instructive, first and foremost, for developers who withdraw (or are about to withdraw) their work from the arbitration zone, and thus risk getting into "public discussion".
I agree. This is the downside of working outside the service, someone has to trust. Technically it could be any of us, but since the public is involved, it is easier to accuse me of not complying with some points of TOR, than for me to prove underpayment. So if I rely on your good faith, in case of non-payment I will lose a lot more (in terms of time and effort) than the $30 you may lose.
1) If you are willing to pay back the time.
2) Yes, but what about the question of payment? After all, I didn't ask for much from the start, and I don't change the cost. And since the terms of reference raises a lot of questions then it is not the easiest. + I think it would be logical for this thread to be deleted. Delete it can if you ask the administration to do so. (As the author of the theme).
3) More or less, but if the question implies that I am ready to revise and clarify some points again after writing a revised TOR, then yes. I always finish to the logical end once I start the work.
I suggest the following way: start the work, you make a demo, for example, without the possibility to set parameters and without the function of increasing the lots. When I see that the orders are placed in accordance with TOR (some bugs and errors are allowed), I will pay extra 30$ and you finalise it.
Regarding deleting the branch, then as soon as the EA is completely finished.
Opinion. The topic is edifying, and should not be removed. Edifying, first of all, for those developers who withdraw their work from the arbitration zone, and thus risk getting into "public discussion".
Anyhow, there will be clashes between other performers and developers, and then no admonition will not help. So the question of removal is only for the author, and it all comes down to a specific case.
That's where I'm going, if Techno doesn't want his money back.
There is just a problem both for me and him - it seems to me that both of us will not be comfortable to work together.
But if Techno is interested in continuing to work, I am willing to work through the service
Let's move the communication to private messenger.