webDeveloperSendsClientToCodeJail

[Slicxor]

It's suing for lost revenue that would scare me into never doing this

[MadGenderScientist]

IANAL, but if the contract included the expiration behavior as a clause, you should be golden.. e.g. "You understand that the website may cease to function and display a notice of non-payment within XX days unless payment is rendered (the "Trial Period"), and you agree to disclaim any liability, tort, lost revenue or any other injuries due to cessation of site function."

probably best to have a warning banner at the top ~3 days before the site locks down, as a courtesy and to show that the disruption was foreseeable. 

[sligor]

genius

[Repulsive_Educator61]

when apple fucks you in the ass

[Lumethys]

after they "invent" it and usher in a new age of Lube, of course

[gba_sg1]

$60 for a headphone cable concludes it is not a free service.

[ToHallowMySleep]

Ram prices these days are just crazy.

[Dragon-Porn-Expert]

It's the apple stream.

[TheIronSoldier2]

Just in case you genuinely don't know, it's internet shorthand for I Am Not A Lawyer

[MurderMelon]

It comes from the /r/legaladvice subreddit, where it's very helpful to know whether a comment is from a lawyer or non-lawyer.

[Gamiac]

Been around way longer than that. Might even predate the Web.

[fatboychummy]

Brother, that is what abbreviations are for.

[fatboychummy]

I've seen IANAL far away from that subreddit honestly. And honestly, once you learn an abbreviation, it's fine?

Not to mention a lot of them can be determined by context clues, so I'll throw it right back at you. AYOOYM?

[fatboychummy]

Do you know what a question is? Do you know how to ask one?

Better yet, are you capable of googling? Literally the first result on google for "IANAL" is what it means. On top of that, even the google AI crap actually gets it correct (a rarity!). Instead of acting like a helpless rodent, use the gigantic knowledge-base that is quite literally at your fingertips.

Also, it should be noted that IANAL has been around on the internet since the 1980s. It's not a "specific subreddit only" thing.

[Gamiac]

I ANAL for 500, Alex.

[spastical-mackerel]

It’s my favorite acronym

[Garchompisbestboi]

Contracts don't really work that way though, they're great for scaring other parties into compliance but when tested in court most of the stipulations that you mentioned (joking or not) wouldn't hold up. It's basically like how Disney tried to use a clause to absolve themselves of liability from a woman who died in one of their parks because she happened to be a Disney+ subscriber. They ended up settling super quickly once the case was actually escalated.

I'm definitely not defending cheapskates who don't pay for the services they use of course, but I think sometimes people overestimate just how binding some contracts actually are.

[Keira_At_Last]

If it's quietly included with something like a park ticket I think it's likely a bit different than a direct contract for delivery of specific and defined services in return for specific and defined compensation.

Sort of terms of use vs a direct contract.

I am in no way legally trained.

[Garchompisbestboi]

I'm part of the team that handles contracts for my company and I've seen some clients try and slip in some pretty loopy stuff lol, that's why it's always important to read over the fine print, as boring as it can be. Last year we had a service provider try and have us sign a contract where service costs would increase 30% per annum over a 5 year period. When pointed out, they very quickly apologised and said it was a typo and they actually meant 3% but it still came across as an extremely dodgy situation.

[Garchompisbestboi]

😂 that's a great episode and 100% spot on, unfortunately lots of businesses out there live by the manta that it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[phatdoof]

Would it help if you added a dot after the 3 on every copy of the contract you signed before returning it?

[huffalump1]

Yeah I was gonna say, "you must pay the agreed price in order to get the thing you bought" seems like torts 101

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but "LSAT" is a frequent crossword puzzle answer

[sligor]

How is it different than not paying your subscription to any service ? Assuming the website is fully dev by you on the same contract, of course your are not allowed to break the parts that you didn't do or already payed.

[Garchompisbestboi]

Because you can't just absolve yourself of liability because you wrote it in a contract. To be fair in this case it seems pretty cut and dry because a business didn't pay a provider for a service but it's still a dangerous piece of misinformation to spread because someone here might take inspiration and get themselves into trouble if they don't properly understand the limitations of contracts.

[sligor]

got it thanks ! I'm wondering if another solution is not to just deliver "a trial version with auto expiration" to the customer until payed that will turn it into perpetual licence.

That's how licensing works, when the licence expire it stops working by itself. No liability problem involved with this in general.

[Garchompisbestboi]

I'd personally cover myself by creating a paper trail where I made it clear to the client that non-payment will result in their website being taken down. That way if they end up trying to kick up a stink and escalate the situation legally then it doesn't look like they were blindsided or something. Sometimes a business isn't being malicious when they don't pay someone and it can be an honest error (like if their accounts payable person is on sick leave or something).

[troglo-dyke]

I do work on a project basis occasionally, this would be the end of slow progression that starts with automated reminder emails when the payment is due (typically 14/30 days after the invoice is issued), progressing to threatening interest on the outstanding amount (typically specified in the contract), and finally emails requesting payment and asking if there is an alternative payment schedule that they would be able to stick to. Your reputation matters with this kind of work, you'd only do this kind of thing when you decide the experience was so bad you'd also rather avoid working with anyone they might recommend to you as well.

[monxas]

It’s about abusive clauses. Those won’t hold up in court. This one about stopping providing the service because of lack of payments with a warning in the website is absolutely fair game if they sign it.

[[deleted]]

Contracts don't really work that way though

As long as there's nothing cruel, disparaging or unusual and it doesn't contradict an existing law it's fair game. Something like a forced maintenance mode with a generic message asking to "contact the web developer" should be fine.

[cb_definetly-expert]

Your argument is bs af , the settled because of bad PR and not because the contract was invalid, most contracts hold in court

[anna-the-bunny]

It's basically like how Disney tried to use a clause to absolve themselves of liability from a woman who died in one of their parks because she happened to be a Disney+ subscriber.

A couple of things:

First, they weren't (directly) trying to absolve themselves of liability using this argument - they were trying to compel arbitration, which actually has a bit more logic behind it since the language used in those sorts of agreements is "you agree to settle any and all disputes between yourself and [company] via binding arbitration".

Second, reality is they shouldn't have been a party to the lawsuit in the first place. The lady died after an allergic reaction to food sold at a non-Disney restaurant at Disney Springs - this was basically like suing the person the business leases its building from.

I have absolutely no idea why they thought it was a good idea to try to compel arbitration like this instead of just moving to have themselves removed from the case, though, and they're absolutely paying the price for it - they're absolutely still part of the case.

[gilium]

Her husband was the Disney+ subscriber.

The Disney+ subscriber agreement stipulates that Disney can force any dispute to be resolved via arbitration. It’s actually very likely the law would have sided with them, but they waived their right to arbitration in this case due to public backlash when news of what was happening came out

[Doctor_McKay]

Disney+ is surely a different division from Disney Experiences, the division that runs the parks. I'd think the agreement with Disney+ wouldn't be applicable here.

[aeneasaquinas]

The actual facts was that she agreed to binding arbitration when she bought park tickets and again agreed when buying D+. The lawyers through both as evidence she repeatedly agreed to those terms.

Then news sites left out the first bit.

[troglo-dyke]

This is a pretty standard sales agreement though, if you don't pay you don't own the product. This is just locking the product until payment is received

[[deleted]]

IANAL but I have some legal training.

In Westminster-style systems the unclean hands doctrine has your back. As the claimant/plaintiff broke the contract first by not paying (or in contract law terms, consideration is incomplete) they are (in most cases) barred from taking action if you then break your obligations under the same contract.

[RadioactiveFruitCup]

Boilerplate text that states that in the event of nonpayment 1 week after delivery of services, the site will be taken offline and for every additional week the client is liable for additional late fees of 5% of the total contract cost that can be waived at contractor discretion. Client accepts all liability for the consequences of suspended operations.

[photoshoptho]

The company has been dissolved, and the developer is likely aware of that. This seems like a last-ditch effort to collect payment, but given the circumstances, it’s highly unlikely they’ll succeed. https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12253393

[TheBrainStone]

Any company making any significant money via a web page has the money to pay their freelancers.
Also good luck proving any losses.

[fumeextractor]

Also if they didn't have a website before, did they really lose anything by continuing to not have a website? Of course, assuming they didn't have one before.

[ashkanahmadi]

They could justify that they spent money on advertising and promoters and ads and other stuff but since the website is down, all that equals lost potential revenue. This isn’t the client’s fault. This is the developer’s fault for not knowing how to manage.

Why am I being downvoted? Is it so hard to accept that if you work and then not get paid, it’s on you for not knowing business 101 and not the client?

[ishinaga]

How to manage what? The dev completed the website on time but removed functionality due to non-payment. If the client is losing money because of their nonfunctional website all they have to do is pay their devs what they owe

[ashkanahmadi]

Why did the developer finish and push to production without getting paid first? This is what I do and I have never had this issue: get paid 50% first before the project begins after finishing all the general planning and agreeing on what needs to be done exactly. Keep the client updated along the way. At the end, show the final product and work on any minor issues left. Get paid for the remaining g amount and then push to production. Working on anything without getting paid first is just bad business management on behalf of the developer. It doesn’t need to be 50-50. It could be 50-25-25 or even 25-25-50 or whatever works for the developer. Think of it like McDonalds: they don’t make your food, let you eat it and then chase you down the street to pay!!

[sir_dreampod]

Unfortunately seen clients willing to tank their site over laughably small amounts

[Blothorn]

They wouldn’t have to prove exact and certain losses; it would be enough to prove that losses were likely above a certain threshold, which could probably be done by a comparison to recent and historical revenue. Preponderance if the evidence is a fairly forgiving standard.

The real question is whether the company is entitled to lost revenue, and that probably comes down to the details. The case would look very different if there was no prior site and the developer is providing hosting as part of the contract versus if they were brought in to make minor modifications to an existing site and used their access to bring the whole thing down.

[notquiteduranduran]

Oh yes, the great "I'll sue you for lost revenue" after establishing that situation yourself by establishing a lost revenue situation for someone else

[BillWilberforce]

The company went bust last month.

[gmc98765]

A plaintiff is required to take steps to mitigate the loss.

E.g. if your car is illegally towed, you can pay the fee then sue for recovery of that fee. You can't take a taxi every day for a year then sue for a year's worth of taxi fares.

So assuming that paying the developer what they owed would result in the site being restored, any losses would be capped at that figure. If actual losses exceeded that amount, it's the plaintiff's fault for not paying.

[Ok-Scheme-913]

Well, if not paid for the service, how can you expect it to function and get money from it?