The councillor has not finished and I have already paid and even paid extra. What should I do?

New comment
 

Hello.

Help me solve a question, what should I do? I paid for the robot and it doesn't work properly. I was programmed by *** Maybe someone knows him? Of course I left the best review, but the work is not finished. When discussing with him in chat, I wrote about this robot feature. I tested it of course and missed one feature.

 
Dimants:

Hello.

Help me solve a question, what should I do? I paid for the robot and it doesn't work properly. I was programmed by *** Maybe someone knows him? Of course I left the best review, but the work is not finished. When discussing with him in chat, I wrote about this robot feature. I tested it of course and missed one feature.

Being more attentive. If you accept the work, it means that you are satisfied. In human terms, of course the contractor would have corrected his mistake, especially as this point was discussed.
 
Have you made any arrangements for warranty service? It might help in this case. It seems to me that it is too late to complain. The job has been accepted, all deadlines have passed and the money in the developer's account has been unlocked? Now you can only appeal to his goodwill.
 
The money hasn't been unlocked yet. Will it help?
 
Dimants:
The money hasn't been unlocked yet. Will it help?

why would I do that?

You pressed the "OK, I'm happy" button... It's a fact, confirmed by your actions and no one was standing next to you with a soldering iron.

was the job discussed in the correspondence made with the terms of reference ? I bet not - it's just physically impossible - there are no options to make adjustments to the order at the execution stage.

There's no basis for any action. The original job is done.

Negotiate a new one, for new money and deadlines, to make adjustments to the previously made EA.

But if I were the contractor, I wouldn't negotiate any more.

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

why would...?

That's why the money is blocked, so that the client can check the tool properly. But now we have to go to arbitration and prove that the owl does not comply with the available terms of reference, in other words, it is just not fulfilled, or not complete fulfillment of the task. If any additional terms have been stipulated in correspondence with the developer, the one in the job to freelance, it may well be decisive in my opinion so should act. Although I have no experience in resolving disputes.

But I would first try to negotiate with the developer without these arbitration measures.

 

Hi!

The programmer just didn't understand what you wanted from him.

You should have written the strategy down to the last detail, with screenshots, and you should clarify it on the phone, not in the chat room.

After all, you won't understand what the customer wants in the chat room.


This is the first thing.

And the programmer is not obliged to make you a grail by your strategy.

He makes a purely technical task - from A to B. That's all.

And whether your strategy is a grail - it does not catch the programmer.


Just ask him to modify it, explain what's what and how, and give him a beer on his card :))) need to grease the deal. then it will go as it should gyggyg)))

 
Andrei Novichkov:

That is why the money is blocked, so that the customer can properly check the tool received. But now you need to go to arbitration and prove the non-conformity of the owl to the available TOR, in other words, just not performing, or not completely fulfilling the task. If any additional terms have been stipulated in correspondence with the developer, the one in the job to freelance, it may well be decisive in my opinion so should act. Although I have no experience in resolving disputes.

But I would first try to negotiate with the developer without these arbitration measures.

The money is blocked for possible rule-breaking settlements in the course of your tweening.

Have the rules been broken? Apparently not.

You are clearly, with the involvement of the public, trying to force the person to do something beyond the TOR.

Get it right - you have made some sort of deal the subject of which is the performance of an agreed task. You signed it. In the process of execution you can talk about anything, and as long as it does not get into the addendum - it remains rubbish. The contractor can say that he can do something else or you can say that it would be nice to have some more chips.

But the money is strictly for what has been signed. Just business ethics

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

The money is blocked for the possible violation of the rules in the course of your little get-togethers.

Have the rules been broken? Apparently not.

you are clearly, with public involvement, trying to force a person to do something above and beyond the TOR.

Get it right - you made some kind of deal the subject of which is to perform an agreed task. You signed it. In the process of execution you can talk about anything, and as long as it does not get into the addendum - it remains rubbish. The contractor can say that he can do something else or you can say that it would be nice to have some more chips.

But the money is strictly for what has been signed. Just business ethics

So why is it over and above the terms of reference? In the first post he writes that something doesn't work that should work. Yes, he missed it. But in such cases, I finish the work after payment, because it is my fault, and there is a matter of professionalism of the performer. But to do as they please and hope that a person who is a zero in the code will not figure it out and then cover his ass with the rules, it is either this attitude to customers or to the quality of their work.
 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

money is blocked for possible rules infringement investigations in the course of your get-togethers.

Have the rules been broken? Apparently not.

You are clearly, with the involvement of the public, trying to force someone to do something above and beyond the TOR.

Get this right - you made some kind of deal with the subject of the agreed task. You signed it. In the process of execution you can talk about anything, and while it does not get into the addendum - it remains a chit-chat. The contractor can say that he can do something else or you can say that it would be nice to have some more chips.

But the money is strictly for what has been signed. Just business ethics.

It is not about forcing the developer to do something beyond the TOR. I am just writing about another situation. You've seen the TOR in freelancing. At best their quality can be assessed as mediocre. That is why there is an opportunity to comment and discuss the order. And as far as I know, the arbitrator agrees to consider these discussions as part of the TOR. Perhaps not in all cases, the approach is more likely to be individual. So, if in the process of agreeing the ToR, order execution, there was a discussion about some additional options and the developer, again in writing, during the discussion of the order, agreed to the changes, clarifications and additions, and then did not do it, the arbitration will side with the customer, it seems to me. This can be equated to a failure to fulfil the terms of reference.

But what we are discussing here is probably an empty situation. The developer simply forgot to do something and needs to be reminded of it. Personally, I would do anything I forgot to do, how else could I do it?

 
And if, after two or three bug fixes, the developer gives up the work to time, how would that be?in this case?
1234567
New comment
Reason: