4 ms·

Yes and no, but there are still people that can be honest to each other without contracts and nasty clauses and so on. A job description though, that both part

Yes and no, but there are still people that can be honest to each other without contracts and nasty clauses and so on. A job description though, that both parties know what to expect from each other. (When the work is done and payment is due) can be done in an email.

seanwilson 8y ago
Ignoring other benefits like assigning liability, a contract isn't going to be able to force your client to pay under all circumstances anyway. Clients can always argue the work wasn't up to the standard they were expecting, they could later disagree with the interpretation of the requirements, clients can go bankrupt and be unable to pay you etc. In terms of getting paid, knowing which clients and projects to avoid, controlling scope creep, setting expectations and structuring work to get paid as you go are more important in my opinion. Once you're at the stage of pointing to contract terms the project is probably on rocky territory already where your client isn't going to be happy at the end of it. Get a contract as well but I keep reading people talking about getting "air tight contracts" as if they're the most important part of getting paid.
geezerjay 8y ago
> Yes and no, but there are still people that can be honest to each other without contracts and nasty clauses and so on. Contracts are not about honesty. They are a way to avoid having to negotiate how to act when predictable problems occur by setting the conditions (i.e., what to do when something happens) on paper. If a project stays permanently on its happy path then you don't need safeguard clauses, but often it doesn't and having to decide how to proceed after problems occur is not easy or enjoyable for any part, because someone's ideal solution may not be aligned with someone else's best interests.
- mobilemidget 8y ago
  I meant that some people will not be honest and fair if things aren’t 100% in writing with signatures, and that’s on both sides

seanwilson 8y ago

Ignoring other benefits like assigning liability, a contract isn't going to be able to force your client to pay under all circumstances anyway. Clients can always argue the work wasn't up to the standard they were expecting, they could later disagree with the interpretation of the requirements, clients can go bankrupt and be unable to pay you etc. In terms of getting paid, knowing which clients and projects to avoid, controlling scope creep, setting expectations and structuring work to get paid as you go are more important in my opinion. Once you're at the stage of pointing to contract terms the project is probably on rocky territory already where your client isn't going to be happy at the end of it. Get a contract as well but I keep reading people talking about getting "air tight contracts" as if they're the most important part of getting paid.

geezerjay 8y ago

> Yes and no, but there are still people that can be honest to each other without contracts and nasty clauses and so on. Contracts are not about honesty. They are a way to avoid having to negotiate how to act when predictable problems occur by setting the conditions (i.e., what to do when something happens) on paper. If a project stays permanently on its happy path then you don't need safeguard clauses, but often it doesn't and having to decide how to proceed after problems occur is not easy or enjoyable for any part, because someone's ideal solution may not be aligned with someone else's best interests.

mobilemidget 8y ago
I meant that some people will not be honest and fair if things aren’t 100% in writing with signatures, and that’s on both sides