I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 22
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
The first one, because it shows a void in the discussion history of this first participant and the customer. That is, the discussions were going on outside our service.
The second performer was also advised to communicate by post, which they both took advantage of. The client himself reported that he received the final message from the implementer exactly by post. The format of the last message clearly indicated that there was a discussion about the new price. In other words, the discussion in the mail could not have been one-sided.
As a result, the actual work and discussions were held outside of our service, the discussion was held by mail and resulted in a disagreement between the parties on the terms of the deal. The fact that one party pressed the arbitration button does not absolve the other party of responsibility.
because a service is being bought. the result may not meet expectations. but the service itself has to be provided, right?
Many people equate 'pie on the shelf' with 'service'. But that does not mean it is.
What is being done is an order for a unique development based on a unique Customer's assignment, where the Customer is a full participant in the process, not a buyer of a standard pie.
If a vote were taken, 99 would be in favour of the 5 quid being charged to the contractor in this situation.
The contractor probably is too.)
But this algorithm does not seem to be in place. Penalty for withdrawal from commitments made.
We charged the Employer.
At the same time no one argues that we must pay for the service, that we must punish it and so on.
After which the person disappears and refuses to work.
It's over with the first one. What side job?
I am writing directly to you that the first one was a blabbermouth.
And how exactly and through what channel did this first candidate refuse? I specifically wrote that there are no such refusals in this candidate's discussion history. That is, the discussion took place outside the service and what you were discussing there, no one but the two of you know.
The situation with the second applicant was the same - they were discussing the job and exchanging emails. You wrote about it yourself. And the format of the letter indicates that it was not a solitary response.
Many people equate 'pie on the shelf' with 'service'. But that does not mean it is.
What is being done is an order for a unique development on a unique Customer assignment, where the Customer is a full participant in the process, not a purchaser of a standard pie.
I beg to differ.
It's more like...
I want a pie
5 quid
Okay. .
Tried it-- it's not sweet, it's meat!
no good, it's not a deal.
I agree.
And here they didn't even let me taste the pie.
Like .
Give me a pie.
5 quid.
Okay.
Oh, and the pies are already out or hot or high on you back 4.5 quid.
if you took it and didn't like it, that's one thing, and if you didn't give it, that's another.
The first, because it shows a void in the discussion history of this first participant and the customer. That is, the discussions were going on outside our service.
The second performer was also advised to communicate by post, which they both took advantage of. The client himself reported that he received the final message from the implementer by post. The format of the last message clearly indicated that there was a discussion about the new price. In other words, the discussion in the mail could not have been one-sided.
As a result, the actual work and discussions were held outside of our service, the discussion was held by mail and resulted in a disagreement between the parties on the terms of the deal. The fact that one party pressed the arbitration button does not absolve the other party of responsibility.
Once again, I tell you that I communicated with the first in your service in the section "MESSAGES", why - the first wrote there. I didn't recommend the second one to EMAIL, I just informed him as all normal people do. None of the letters gave any bank details for payments. I didn't email the second one, and if he emailed me, that was his problem. The letter was the final one.
If someone is "greedy" about the $ 400, so I did not expect to pay such money and therefore there was no discussion. And the client and the contractor can discuss it at their own discretion, even in Chinese.
And how exactly and through which channel did this first candidate refuse? .
What if in the end the customer refused his services with the first one?
For example, when I communicated with this (first) candidate, he wrote something inadequate. If he did or did not do it, then send it, then not send it...
The good thing is that it was not for work, but as part of his request to plant strategies for getting my hands full. i.e. he did it for free. in the end, of all the people i communicated with, only one person left a positive attitude from!!!! who really helped me a lot in understanding and mastering the basics.
With the first candidate, there is no message about refusing to work on our service. Not even in private. If you did receive a rejection, it was only on the side. You insisted on emailing him as well.
With the other, the correspondence was by mail. Which you suggested as a channel of communication. The format of the message implied that you were communicating with him beforehand in the same way (about money). There's no need to talk about an unexpected rejection in the form of a single letter.
The situation is banal and persistent - the parties knowingly worked and corresponded on the side and then submitted the case to arbitration.
I have been charged, where do I find out what for?
The situation is trivial and persistent - the parties knowingly conducted work and correspondence on the side and then declared to arbitration.