I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 41

New comment
 
zfs:
Maybe it should, but it should be done in a civilised way like other services.

It seems that all processes take time...

it hasn't come for everything yet.

 
zfs:
Maybe we should, but we should do it in a civilised way, like other services.
Should we charge the contractor or not?
 
zfs:
Someone had to pay for the idiocy in the terms of reference). At least programmers make mistakes too, and in the end it turns out programmers' mistakes on customers' mistakes=0. And 5% for service, practically a tip. And let the stingy ones go to hell).
Yes, the question is not about whether or not the service must receive its 5%. Of course he should... and rightly so. The question is: who should pay this 5% in case the service provider fails to do the job? Because only two situations are possible:
1) Provider fulfilled the work - the Customer paid 100%, Provider received 95%, Service received 5% - everything is fair and just;
2) Provider did not do the work (so decided by Arbitration) - the Customer unfrozen 100%, Service withheld 5% of the unperformed work from the Provider. And if there is no money on the Contractor's account - see above my post about changing the wording of two controversial paragraphs of the Rules.
This would be correct and fair to all parties concerned - Customer, Contractor, Service.
 
sanyooooook:
So should the contractor be charged or not?
Why not, he is using the service. Is it worth charging money at all?)
 
zfs:
A programmer sometimes works for free when the customer is a freak).
Sometimes not just for free, but for a long/many/free time))
 
valeryk:
Sometimes not just free, but long/many/free))
That's the programmer's problem, because everyone chooses slavery to his/her liking )
 
sanyooooook:
Is it worth charging the contractor or not?
You should! But I don't think they will)
 
sanyooooook:
That's the programmer's problem, because everyone chooses slavery to his/her liking )
Some don't just come from mercantile interests) But it's so unprofitable...
 
pagot:
The question is not whether the Service should or should not get its 5%. Of course it should... And rightly so. The question is: who should pay the 5% if the contractor fails to do the job? After all, only two situations are possible:
1) Provider has fulfilled the work - the Customer has paid 100%, Provider has received 95%, Service has received 5% - everything is fair and just;
2) Provider has not fulfilled the work (Arbitration decided so) - the Customer has unfrozen 100%, Service has withheld 5% from the amount of work not done. And if there is no money on the Contractor's account, see above my post about changing the wording of two controversial clauses of the Rules.
It would be right and fair to all concerned - Customer, Contractor, Service.
I had exactly the same situation. I remember that 5% too). The Customer, making out the work, is already using the site's service. In this situation, the customer wrote a job that cannot be completed, of course the programmer has to return the money. And for a refund the site takes money. They could have clarified the situation before concluding the contract. You have to pay for lawyers). Even if there is no fault on the part of the customer.
 
zfs:
I had the exact same situation. I remember that 5% too). The customer, making out the work, is already using the service of the website. In this situation, the customer has written a job that cannot be completed, of course the programmer has to return the money. And for a refund the site takes money. They could have clarified the situation before concluding the contract. You have to pay for lawyers). Even if the customer is not at fault.
If the customer wrote a task which cannot be fulfilled, the Arbitration is quite reasonable to find the fault of the customer and quite legally and fairly withhold 5% from it. So there is nothing to argue about.
1...343536373839404142434445464748...57
New comment