Failure to fulfil their obligations and refusal to pay back the money - page 22

New comment
 
Mischek:

...but the judges were relentless, they got a taste for it and demanded more and more details...

That's right :) "To the rooms!" - exclaimed Kisa Vorobianinov :)
 
abolk:

With all due respect. But you don't have to "mimic" who you're mimicking. I am not a customer and I am prepared to speak the same language as you. A demo version is always a limited version. A limited version is not in the sense of "part", but in the sense of "features". And the prepayment amount has nothing to do with it. So the demo must contain all the points of the TOR. Otherwise, the customer has no reason to pay you the rest of the contract amount. I doubt that you do not understand that.

Where does it say that the demo must contain everything? Nowhere... You think it has to be everything, fine. I think differently. What's the point of proving what version is correct if it is nowhere else is prescribed, and repeat, it all depends on the arrangements between the customer and the specific contractor. For some of my neo jobs the demo version was a screenshot of a chart. Because that's what was agreed, so what now?
 
_Techno_:
Where does it say that everything has to be in the demo? Nowhere... You think it should be everything, fine. I think differently. What is the point of proving what version is correct if it is nowhere else is prescribed, and repeat, it all depends on the arrangements between the customer and the contractor.

Personally, I'm not a judge and I'm not arguing with you. But on the substance of the issue raised by the client, taking into account the debate - with all due respect to you at the moment I am on the side of the topicstarter.

And if I were arbitration, I would terminate the agreement and return the contract amount to the customer on the basis of the absence of convincing arguments from your side of the feasibility of the task, which stretched for more than a month, without a justification of the delay on your part.

 

How about improving the interaction between "unintelligent" customers and "competent" performers in the following way:

If the contractor sees a "dumb" job, he simply informs the client that the revision of the TOR will cost some money? I.e. TK is paid separately (in clinical cases), software is paid separately. The balance of interests seems to be maintained, because with this approach, the customer will either agree to pay for the TOR separately, or will study the articles.

 

THEME CLOSED


1...1516171819202122
New comment