I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 4
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
sanctions should be imposed on the initiator of the termination
the actions must be at fault and as a result the other party has either not received the code or the money for the work which it was going to do and could do.
if they cannot decide who initiated it, arbitration will decide
Sanctions should be imposed on the initiator of the termination
If they cannot decide who the initiator is, arbitration decides
and if there is not the right amount in the account in case of refusal, not to let them sign up for the job.
it seems that you cannot leave feedback after arbitrage
The rules have long since been changed, whoever wins the arbitration can leave feedback, whoever loses can't, if 50-50 they can both on each other. Naturally, if the contractor refuses to work, he loses the arbitration
sanctions should be imposed on the initiator of the termination
the actions must be at fault and as a result the other party has either not received the code or the money for the work which it was going to do and could do.
if they cannot decide who initiated it, arbitration will decide
Yes, yes. Here I agree with this 100%. It's a twisted situation. I, as the customer, must deposit the full amount agreed with the contractor and the contractor does not have to do anything. After some time, the contractor goes to so-called arbitration, where he literally says that he has not calculated his strength and cannot do it. The arbitrator says "all right", the work contract is terminated and the customer is charged 5%. This is a wild thing.
Logically, as the person took the job but did it, there should be sanctions such as "you can't do it, read the terms of reference before you do it", etc.
If you believe that the money was taken for the fact that the customer on the resource brought together with the performer, the legal point of view, too, not true, because I, as the customer, was brought together with an improper performer (the work not done), ie the service on the site I actually was not rendered, therefore pay, logically I have nothing to anyone.
Of course, in the discussions above there are phrases that perhaps the TOR have changed, or some other force majeure.
Here is a literal phrase of the performer (copied) why the work was not done: "it turns out it will be unrealistic because of the architecture of MT5".
And the next phrase is written that in general - it is possible to do the job, but at a cost of 4 times higher.
And what do I have to do with it as a customer? Arbitrator Rosh still hasn't explained it to me.
Of course, in the discussions above there are phrases that perhaps the TOR have changed, or some other force majeure.
Here is the exact phrase of the performer (copied) why the work was not done: "it turns out to be unrealistic due to the architecture of MT5".
In fact, the artist simply can not do the work, although he signed up for it. For there is only this in the terms of reference:
In this case, the customer should have been more careful in choosing the executor. If we allow the clients to change developers for free using the "what if" method, it only affects the developers.
One loses time and reputation if the order is not up to scratch, the other loses money.
In fact, the contractor simply cannot do the job, even though he has signed up for it. For in the terms of reference there is only this:
In this case, the customer should have been more careful in selecting the contractor. If you allow customers to change artists for free by trying "what if it works", then it only affects developers.
One loses time and reputation if the order is not up to scratch, the other loses money.
Dear Rosh, please teach me how to "choose the contractor more carefully", what questions to ask, what documents to demand or whatever. I'm not a programmer, in fact, I do not understand it. Accordingly, I wrote in TOR what I want to see. The contractor had no questions about the ToR.
And to avoid overshooting performers, so you charge them a percentage, a person will think twice before taking them all in a row.
So I realised my guilt; it turns out I was wrong to give work to just anyone; it's fun.
In fact, the contractor simply cannot do the job, even though he has signed up for it. For the terms of reference is all there is to it:
In this case, the client should have chosen the contractor more carefully. If customers are allowed to change their contractors for free, in the hope that they will get the job done, it only affects the developers.
One loses time and reputation if the order is not up to scratch, the other loses money.
Dear Rosh, please teach me how to "choose the contractor more carefully",
I would also ask you - at what point did you freeze the funds in your account?
When the contractor had no more questions and proceeded with the implementation?
or did he force you to specify and freeze the amount?