I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 7
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
Nice meme you pump. But it doesn't need to be reduced to buying a pie/prepared product.
The meme is different - you were put in touch with a supplier(1. provided a market), provided all the service(2. all the processing, including payments), then dealt with your problems(3. arbitration), and then charged a fine.
Given that we see the statistics and the "why bother applying to arbitration for everything" approach, we are doing absolutely the right thing and rightly so.
why the fine? the contractor refused and said he would fulfil it if they paid him more.
The driver should have signed up for the job if he did not get a good idea of it?
SZS: About the button: nothing it will not kill, who need to agree (and agree) to the conclusion of an agreement.
That's a nice meme you're pumping. There is no need to reduce it to buying a cake/prepared product.
The meme is different - you were set up with a supplier(1. provided a market), provided all the service(2. all the processing, including payments), then dealt with your problems(3. arbitration), and then took a penalty.
There are only two options for withdrawal
Service . But it was not rendered . The meal was not . And related services have to sit in the commission . You can't charge for them separately. Well that's how it seems to me.
Penalty. But for a fine you need guilt, in the form of action or inaction, but guilt. There is none.
In order to avoid abuse of the mutual refusal of work, it is necessary to introduce a refusal on the initiative of one of the participants, the customer or the contractor. We have to charge him a fine. There is a fault.
An employee should think twice before agreeing to work for a fee.
And the client, who decides to change the contractor, will know the price of the replacement in specific figures.
An absolutely delusional situation.
Renat, if you can see everything, then what is the problem? Take the penalty off the contractor (no interface - do a manual translation) and everyone will be happy.
Why should the customer pay for someone else's "I don't get it"?
I repeat, I am not asking you to work for free, remove the penalty from an irresponsible performer. And then add a necessary interface, so that you can solve this issue in one click.
You will scare away customers.
Dear admin, please tell me if I understand correctly.
For example, I order an EA for intersection of 2 MA.
I say I am ready to pay 100 units and I want the result in 24 hours.
one of developers agrees.
24 hours pass and I do not receive my EA. OR 12 hours pass and the developer says he does not quite understand how to implement it.
Either way, I decide that the developer is unsuitable (it's hard to be sure of qualifications based on rating alone)
do i understand correctly that i still get a 5% penalty, even though it's only the developer's fault?
Yes. Plus a rating loss/penalty for both participants.
what is the penalty for? the contractor refused.
Reread my answer - I extended it.
When you pretend that the infrastructure is free, other people do their work for free or the processes are free, think about the high probability of poisoning your neural network yourself. It has been poisoned since it was a child.
An absolutely delusional situation.
Renat, if you can see everything, then what is the problem? Take the penalty off the contractor (no interface - do a manual translation) and everyone will be happy.
Why should the customer pay for someone else's "I don't get it"?
I repeat, I am not asking you to work for free, remove the penalty from an irresponsible performer. And then add a necessary interface, so that you can solve this issue in one click.
You will scare away customers.
An absolutely delusional situation.
Renat, if you can see everything, then what is the problem? Remove the penalty from the implementer (no interface - do a manual translation) and everyone will be happy.
That's the thing, the moderator sees much more, parses the case and cannot publicly voice the arguments. That is, the moderator has read the discussions and arguments of the parties.
There was no unfairness in this case.
An absolutely delusional situation.
Renat, if you can see everything, then what is the problem? Take the penalty off the contractor (no interface - do a manual translation) and everyone will be happy.
Why should the customer pay for someone else's "I don't get it"?
I repeat, I am not asking you to work for free, remove the penalty from an irresponsible performer. And then add a necessary interface, so that you can solve this issue in one click.
You will scare away customers.
That's a nice meme you're pumping into. But you don't have to reduce it to buying a patty/cooked product. A restaurant buys only and only the finished product.
The meme here is different - you were set up with a supplier(1. provided a market), provided all the service(2. all the processing, including payments), then dealt with your problems(3. arbitration), and then took a penalty.
If you deign in the theme of the restaurant, you gave access to your kitchen, let us bring our own chef, your chef failed, our chef dealt with it and then took a fine.
Given that we see the statistics and the "why bother, let's arbitrate everything" approach, we are doing absolutely the right thing and fair.
Yes, indeed service is provided, but you are charged 20% of the order, and rightly so. So there is payment, and fines are at fault, there can be no fines without fault.
What is the fault of the client if the contractor refused to do the work after initially agreeing to it?
That's the thing, the moderator sees much more, parses the case and cannot publicly voice the reasoning. That is, the moderator has read the discussions and arguments of the parties.
There was no unfairness in this case.
OK, I see.
kylinar2012, lay out the details, otherwise you will be left defending your rights with yourself. I have no reason to disbelieve the correctness of Rashid's decision.