6 ms·

As much as I want to side with the developers I think they are exposing themselves to legal repercussions and made their situation worse.

exe34 10mo ago
> legal repercussions like what? contract says "money for stuff". no money, no stuff.
- azangru 10mo ago
  > no money, no stuff. No stuff is one thing. Different stuff deployed to client's url is quite another.
  - tracker1 10mo ago
    It's not the client's url if they didn't pay for it.
    - jlokier 10mo ago
      In the case of a URL it might be. If the domain is registered with the client named as the formal owner, the client may well be the owner even if they haven't paid for it yet.
      - tracker1 9mo ago
        Then the client can move the DNS for the domain and use a server they control and have paid for.
- drysart 10mo ago
  But this is very obviously not "no stuff". This is "different stuff". Taking the website down entirely or just blanking it out is a very, very different matter than replacing it with a different message; and doubly so when the different message is actively harmful to the customer. Unless the designer's contract with the customer explicitly allowed them to do this, this sort of thing is a slam dunk legal case of either vandalism (using a physical metaphor) or in the UK as in this example, a criminal violation of the Computer Misuse Act. Not to mention that it's an enormous red flag that will scare away other potential customers for this designer; because it demonstrates that you're very willing to sabotage their operations.
  - exe34 10mo ago
    it's not the client's website yet, they haven't paid for it!
- 1123581321 10mo ago
  Maybe. A lot of freelancers and agencies have amateur or no contracts. A neutral service suspended message or no response from the server is more defendable if the client goes after you. If you actively communicate on their website, it could be argued you tried to cause reputational harm etc. Even if you're right, provoking a legal response from a client is more than a lot of creatives and developers can handle, especially if the client is big enough to retain legal or staff a GC. I suspect that things will turn out fine for this particular developer since the client seems small and the message is mostly innocuous.
  - exe34 10mo ago
    if the company is big enough to have legal staff, said staff would probably have advised them to pay in the first place.
    - 1123581321 10mo ago
      You would think so! :)
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
SunshineTheCat 10mo ago
It would be interesting to see the project agreement to know if something like this was expressly outlined in it. My guess is if it was, the client wouldn't agree to it, but who knows (many people just skim over them anyways).
petercooper 10mo ago
In the UK, this is less of a problem, though it depends a lot on the contract between the company and the developer. Assuming nothing exotic, that the statement on the site is true (and not a malicious falsehood) and that if the hosting belongs to the end customer they did not revoke the developer's access (i.e. no unauthorised access occurred), then the developer is in a reasonable position legally. IANAL, of course.
- EGreg 10mo ago
  No unauthorized access but they would argue unauthorized vandalism by the developer, which blocks the entire site. Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence. Which is exactly why there needs to be agreement spelled out in contracts upfront, that this could happen, and the client would just sign it. And I am a fan of smart contracts and cryptocurrencies, see my suggestion below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46502285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46502285
  - petercooper 9mo ago
    Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence. In the UK, the place where the site in the original link is, it's okay to state facts about a business transaction in public if it's not a malicious falsehood, a violation of contract, or a violation of privacy laws (e.g. sharing emails or recorded calls). But yes, I agree, the issues leading up to this should all be tackled by the contract up front.
- elevatortrim 10mo ago
  So if I'm a builder, can I build a wall in front of your grocery store's door if you did not pay me, as long as I do not lie and I do not break in?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
true_religion 10mo ago
When you don’t pay for your salesforce Licence it disables your integrations, and puts up a banner saying this has been done for non payment so you should contact an administrator. Far be it from me to hold them up as a beacon of moral value, but in business it’s fair to say you have to pay for service. It’s not a humiliation, it’s just factual.
- elevatortrim 10mo ago
  Not the same thing. Salesforce is a service provider, they can stop the service they provide. This developer could too. Salesforce should not be allowed to cite payment reasons though.
crazygringo 10mo ago
This. You're opening yourself to claims of defamation, tortious interference, disparagement, even coercion, depending on where you are. Not saying the client will win, but they can make it so you'll need to pay lots of legal fees to defend yourself. It's much smarter to just take the site down without any kind of message, or just something that says "temporarily unavailable". Play dumb with the client, say you don't know why it went down but to fix it but you need to be paid first. Or say it depended on cloud credits that were going to come out of payment, if you don't want it to look like the site went down due to your incompetence. Making a big public stink might feel good, but it's not a smart business strategy.
jabroni_salad 10mo ago
I agree, if only because the UK seems to be the florida of goofball defamation cases. And while I do think the developer would win their case, having to field one at all really sucks.

exe34 10mo ago

> legal repercussions like what? contract says "money for stuff". no money, no stuff.

azangru 10mo ago
> no money, no stuff. No stuff is one thing. Different stuff deployed to client's url is quite another.
- tracker1 10mo ago
  It's not the client's url if they didn't pay for it.
  - jlokier 10mo ago
    In the case of a URL it might be. If the domain is registered with the client named as the formal owner, the client may well be the owner even if they haven't paid for it yet.
    - tracker1 9mo ago
      Then the client can move the DNS for the domain and use a server they control and have paid for.
drysart 10mo ago
But this is very obviously not "no stuff". This is "different stuff". Taking the website down entirely or just blanking it out is a very, very different matter than replacing it with a different message; and doubly so when the different message is actively harmful to the customer. Unless the designer's contract with the customer explicitly allowed them to do this, this sort of thing is a slam dunk legal case of either vandalism (using a physical metaphor) or in the UK as in this example, a criminal violation of the Computer Misuse Act. Not to mention that it's an enormous red flag that will scare away other potential customers for this designer; because it demonstrates that you're very willing to sabotage their operations.
- exe34 10mo ago
  it's not the client's website yet, they haven't paid for it!
1123581321 10mo ago
Maybe. A lot of freelancers and agencies have amateur or no contracts. A neutral service suspended message or no response from the server is more defendable if the client goes after you. If you actively communicate on their website, it could be argued you tried to cause reputational harm etc. Even if you're right, provoking a legal response from a client is more than a lot of creatives and developers can handle, especially if the client is big enough to retain legal or staff a GC. I suspect that things will turn out fine for this particular developer since the client seems small and the message is mostly innocuous.
- exe34 10mo ago
  if the company is big enough to have legal staff, said staff would probably have advised them to pay in the first place.
  - 1123581321 10mo ago
    You would think so! :)

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

SunshineTheCat 10mo ago

It would be interesting to see the project agreement to know if something like this was expressly outlined in it. My guess is if it was, the client wouldn't agree to it, but who knows (many people just skim over them anyways).

petercooper 10mo ago

In the UK, this is less of a problem, though it depends a lot on the contract between the company and the developer. Assuming nothing exotic, that the statement on the site is true (and not a malicious falsehood) and that if the hosting belongs to the end customer they did not revoke the developer's access (i.e. no unauthorised access occurred), then the developer is in a reasonable position legally. IANAL, of course.

EGreg 10mo ago
No unauthorized access but they would argue unauthorized vandalism by the developer, which blocks the entire site. Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence. Which is exactly why there needs to be agreement spelled out in contracts upfront, that this could happen, and the client would just sign it. And I am a fan of smart contracts and cryptocurrencies, see my suggestion below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46502285 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46502285
- petercooper 9mo ago
  Airing dirty laundry is in some jurisdictions a legal offence. In the UK, the place where the site in the original link is, it's okay to state facts about a business transaction in public if it's not a malicious falsehood, a violation of contract, or a violation of privacy laws (e.g. sharing emails or recorded calls). But yes, I agree, the issues leading up to this should all be tackled by the contract up front.
elevatortrim 10mo ago
So if I'm a builder, can I build a wall in front of your grocery store's door if you did not pay me, as long as I do not lie and I do not break in?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

true_religion 10mo ago

When you don’t pay for your salesforce Licence it disables your integrations, and puts up a banner saying this has been done for non payment so you should contact an administrator. Far be it from me to hold them up as a beacon of moral value, but in business it’s fair to say you have to pay for service. It’s not a humiliation, it’s just factual.

elevatortrim 10mo ago
Not the same thing. Salesforce is a service provider, they can stop the service they provide. This developer could too. Salesforce should not be allowed to cite payment reasons though.

crazygringo 10mo ago

This. You're opening yourself to claims of defamation, tortious interference, disparagement, even coercion, depending on where you are. Not saying the client will win, but they can make it so you'll need to pay lots of legal fees to defend yourself. It's much smarter to just take the site down without any kind of message, or just something that says "temporarily unavailable". Play dumb with the client, say you don't know why it went down but to fix it but you need to be paid first. Or say it depended on cloud credits that were going to come out of payment, if you don't want it to look like the site went down due to your incompetence. Making a big public stink might feel good, but it's not a smart business strategy.

jabroni_salad 10mo ago

I agree, if only because the UK seems to be the florida of goofball defamation cases. And while I do think the developer would win their case, having to field one at all really sucks.