Rules under Work - page 3
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Again, I won't argue. But, as I pointed out earlier, the contractor is not a passive party in such a relationship, as he posts "his offer to do the job". I cannot understand what prevents a potential Executor from immediately stating one phrase in that offer: "the sources will cost 15 times as much". Or "I don't sell the sources". There will be no further waste of time - the customer either agrees and chooses this Applicant, or forgets about it.
Well, that's also true. It would just be much more convenient to see this box in the application list and not have to go to someone who isn't expecting you in the first place.
My point is this. I think, sooner or later, we'll get to it anyway. I hope so, at least.
And in the rules, it is still worth explicitly noting this distinction. Not just "files".
IMHO
Well, that's also true. It would just be much more convenient to see this box in the application list and not have to go to someone who isn't expecting you in the first place.
My point is this. I think, sooner or later, we'll get to it anyway. I hope so, at least.
I agree that this is convenient for Applicants. I would suggest formulating a specific phrase (sentence) that you would like to see in the Rules. It is then a matter of one minute for moderators to insert such a ready phrase into the Rules.
Yeah, well... I certainly wasn't expecting such an offer. Thanks, cooled down ))))
I can imagine how those rules were accepted)).
Let me see. Maybe I will. ))
I'd like to suggest everyone - think together.
I would like to suggest to everyone - think together.
Since we are talking about the initial application by the Employer, it is reasonable to make a clarification to Section I of the Rules. For example, to insert a new clause 3.1 : "3.1. The order must contain an indication of the expected result of the work (source code or compiled file)".
I don't think that's a problem for me. I'm not going to get clever. I don't really know where to put it.
Maybe I do. By the way, I think the contract's a little simple. No duties, no rights...
That's it. I've had enough of this. I don't know how to phrase it properly.
But the higher, the better...
I don't think that's a problem for me. I'm not going to get clever. I don't really know where to put it.
Maybe I do. By the way, I think the contract's a little simple. No duties, no rights...
That's it. I've had enough of this. I don't know how to phrase it properly.
What is a "contract"? - It is simply an agreement between the parties on some essential terms. The document itself may not be called a "contract". It may not even be in writing. When we buy something in a shop, we get nothing but a receipt, because in this case, the receipt confirms the conclusion of a contract of sale without being put in writing.
According to the same Regulations, the job ticket must contain all the essential terms of the contract between the customer and the contractor, ie the job on its legal nature (pardon the terminology) is a contract of work (Article 702 of the Civil Code). It is simply because of the specific nature of such a written document that they have decided to call it a ToR.
I have already pointed out above that under the existing scheme (which MQ have proposed) the ToR is the basis. Thus, it should reflect as much information as possible.