I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 11
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
your fault for falling for it
You were taken to the next stage without discussing your terms of reference.
The developer, to be on the safe side and to prevent you from running to someone else, forced you to take a step that you should not have taken before approving the terms of reference.
The conclusion is one - it is the developer's fault. And yours - due to ignorance of the rules.
Because if you hadn't frozen the funds before the TORs were approved, you wouldn't have received this penalty.
But you did freeze the funds and the developer screwed you over.
I wrote above that there was.
The only message I got was the following:
Will do no problem $15, skype benptz
This one is not adequate at all. have been chatting with him too.
you have been taken to the next stage without discussing your terms of reference.
The developer, to be on the safe side and to prevent you running to someone else, forced you to take a step that you should not have taken before approving the terms of reference.
The conclusion is one - it is the developer's fault. And yours - due to ignorance of the rules.
Because if you hadn't frozen the funds before the TORs were approved, you wouldn't have received this penalty.
But you did freeze the funds, and the developer screwed you.
Am I right to understand that the money should be frozen after the developer approves the terms of reference? In this case, we have the situation that the money is frozen BEFORE approval?
If money has been frozen, but developer has not agreed TOR, then yes, the customer is lame and punished by 5$ for unwillingness to read rules.
But in this case, customer was lucky and developer approved TOR
2013.11.27 14:01DeveloperIm_hungry has confirmed TORapproval step. On the account of the customer (kylinar2012) 100.00 credits are frozen
At this step the customer has money frozen according to the rules.
so how would compliance with the rules help the customer avoid a fine in this case? what should have been done?
and another essential point.
Everyone here is pointing to the rules. Where in the rules for using the WORK service https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/rules is there any mention of the arbitration fine?
and another essential point.
Everyone here is pointing to the rules. Where in the rules of the WORK service https://www.mql5.com/ru/job/rules is there any mention of the arbitration fine?
Never mind the rules, nothing is perfect.
rules always try to reflect the point.
here the point is not fair
Never mind the rules, nothing is perfect.
The rules always try to reflect the point.
The point here isn't fair.
no, any penalty should be prescribed. otherwise the question arises - why 5? is it the loss of profits when the transaction is cancelled?
It is clear, I mean that first the essence, fair, taking into account all parties, including for example protection from abuse, and then on the basis of the essence of the rule
rules may be the same at the start, then the practice may adjust them
Greetings, just "fine" is not the right word to understand that you have to pay for the use of the service, people's work, the transfer fee, energy costs, etc. - (which is a wagon, and a small cart)
I am happy, but why in such a situation, the customer pays for these costs and not the person who has retreated?