Failure to fulfil their obligations and refusal to pay back the money - page 3

[Yedelkin]

mayler:

I believe that if a person sells services as a specialist and his reputation is important to him, then he should not do so, regardless of whether he takes an order according to the rules or levitates - the attitude to the customer is important here. And if a person works with the idea of screwing someone over, he will do it with crooks and with everyone else if possible.

A side conclusion: in the section "Achievements" must be introduced another line: "The shoals of the artist works. Otherwise, the order ranking itself is misleading.

[Igor Makanu]

Yedelkin: As a side note, in the section "Achievements" should be introduced another line: "Mistakes of the artist works". And the mere ranking of orders misled people.

Well, this time Techno was not the executor of the work, but carried out secret correspondence and third-party calculations, no matter how you slice it, but the methaquotes provided a reasonable working scheme for both customer and programmer, it is not forbidden to conduct business correspondence and take money for it, and what they agreed there - they agreed, let them deal with it, without public inquiry / censure

SZS:2abolk, sorry for earlier post - absolutely nothing personal, it's "getting on my nerves".

[Yedelkin]

IgorM:

Techno wasn't the contractor this time, he was the one doing the secret correspondence and third-party calculations...

It's simple here. Look: even the law has a concept of "illegal entrepreneurial activity". Well, like, even if you do something in violation of the rules, you're still doing business. Only if the state wants you to, you'll get hit in the head. By analogy: doing a job, even if it is by the rules or outside the rules, is still doing a job. Accordingly, the status of a contractor will not be lost depending on how the programmer chooses to communicate with the customer.

And taking into account that unprepared customers are attracted to official developers rating supported by MQ, the "Developer's defects" section should be included to "Achievements" section. ...Typically: achievements of illegal business activity. So that the customer then did not say that the site did not provide him complete information about the leaders of so-called "Top Developers".

[Igor Makanu]

Yedelkin: It's simple here. Look: there is even a concept of 'illegal entrepreneurial activity' in the law.

The law is not simple, but it is already a trial, and as usual, the guilty may suffer along with the guilty, and who needs a trial if there is a service to be provided?

[Sceptic Philozoff]

mayler: I was too lazy to bother going through all the steps

You can only blame yourself. Now you can't even post a review on the Job - neither good nor bad.

It seems to me that you shouldn't have published that negative thing: that job was an internal matter for both of you, if that's what you agreed on - and it should have remained so. It's about the same as publishing personal correspondence on a forum.

I'm not sure if you haven't already been blacklisted by the people doing the work.

Nothing personal, no offense.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

The situation may be different here. Let's read the text of the writer:

mayler:

Добрый день! Как быть в ситуации когда программер Techno взялся за разработку советника после предоплаты и уже несколько месяцев не выдает результата, на предложение вернуть деньги, сказал что все сделай, но так и пропал. И совсем на сообщения не отвечает.

Причем за все время был предложен советник, который совершенно не соотвтетсвовал ТЗ. Очень долго Techno не мог разобраться в ТЗ (ну здесь может мое изложение ТЗ на это повлияло). Но после того как уму все стало ясно от него ни слуху ни духу.

Что можно сделать в этой ситуации? Как то повлиять на Techno?  

The text is clear:

- The techno advisor did
- but the topicstarter believes that the made EA does not comply with the TOR

A typical arbitration situation in which both sides think the other side is wrong. The techno may well believe that the EA is done and the customer's claims are unfounded. Which is why he has gone into ignore.

What is good about Arbitrage in service. The Arbitration takes the right and responsibility to pass the verdict.

And in this case, perhaps without the involvement of a third party - neither the top starter, nor Techno - not to agree.

Also, without providing Terms of Reference (ToR) and the code of performed Expert Advisor (EA) to the client - can not be understood.

Therefore, from the topikstarter - this thread - an unfounded claim. And as such, the topic must be removed. Or the top starter must post the TOR and EA and give his comments on the work done.

[Sceptic Philozoff]

abolk: Therefore, on the part of the topic-starter, this thread is an unfounded complaint. And, as such, the topic should be deleted. Either the topicstarter should post the ToR and EA and give his comments on the work done.

Seconded. No facts - no case.

[Yedelkin]

IgorM:
How easy can it be?

Let's make it "complicated" for you :) You get the point: if you do the work, you are the doer of the work (regardless of the rules).

[Yedelkin]

Mathemat:
I agree. No facts - no case

With this approach, you are all ignoring one simple point: the protection of the Consumer's rights. Is it really so hard to understand that the Consumer of the work/service does not need to know the intricacies of the contractor's problems?

He (the Consumer) needs a workable product; he went to a specialized site; he read the rules of the site; - but the top (according to MQ) developer offers a different way of communication than that prescribed in the rules of the site about the work. And what he (the Consumer) do: refuse the services of a top developer (whose status is officially supported by the site), or agree to the terms of the status programmer?

... And you immediately - delete the topic. Like, no subject - no problem. Roughly speaking, began to "top" developers - be kind enough to take into account shoals of individual staff and bring these shoals to the consumer.

[Andrey F. Zelinsky]

Yedelkin:

With this approach, you are all ignoring one simple point: the protection of the Consumer's rights. Is it really so hard to understand that the Consumer of the work/service does not need to know the intricacies of the contractor's problems?

He (the Consumer) needs a workable product; he went to a specialized site; he read the rules of the site; - but the top (according to MQ) developer offers a different way of communication than that prescribed in the site rules about the work. And what should he do: refuse the services of a top developer or agree with a status programmer?

... And you immediately - delete the topic. Like, no subject - no problem. Roughly speaking, began to "top" developers - be kind to take into account the shoals of individual staff and bring these shoals to the consumer.

In addition to the "Customer's Rights", there are the "Contractor's Rights". There is also an obligation for the parties to make "justified claims". Because if there is no valid claim, it is called "collusion", "blackmail", "public insult", etc. etc.

And it doesn't matter where the agreement is made - at the service or on the side.

If at the service, the service has an in-house Arbitrator.

But if the claim is made publicly, the community is the in-house arbitrator.

Therefore - either the topicstarter provides a "complaint on the merits," or the topic should be removed, because, as it is, at a minimum, in violation of the rules of the forum "This site prohibits any form of public clarification of personal relationships between users.