I have been charged, where do I find out what for? - page 42
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
I had the exact same situation. I also remember that 5%). The customer, making the work, is already using the service site. In this situation, the customer wrote a job that cannot be completed, of course the programmer has to return the money. And for a refund the site takes money. They could have clarified the situation before concluding the contract. You have to pay for lawyers). Even if there is no fault on the part of the customer.
1. what is impossible about correspondence from 4 to 5?
2. why take on an impossible task? it's about the level of the performer...
1. what is impossible about correspondence from 4 to 5?
2. why take on an impossible task? it's about the level of the performer...
There are different methods of execution. The customer was not satisfied with the possible option, which is exactly what he wanted.
It is the responsibility of the initiating party to refuse to carry out the work after confirmation of the ToR (agreed, without deviations). But there is always one party - the client - who, regardless of the result of the work, will forfeit 5% of its value. This is a clear mistake... MQ must either be a bit altruistic and return 100% of money to the customer in such cases (which may indeed cause rare abuses) or change the procedure a bit: freeze 5% of the cost of the work and from the Developer (as already discussed here). That way MQ:
It has been said here that arbitration can't cope with the volume of work...
so it's easier - 5% from the client and we're done talking.
ps if it can't handle the workload then something is wrong ... something has to change... ...maybe a bigger staff.
It has been said here that arbitration can't cope with the volume of work...
so it's easier - 5% from the client and we're done talking.
ps if it can't handle the workload then something is wrong ... something has to change... ...maybe a bigger staff.
- "will increase the inflows/residuals in their payment system accounts, as new Contractors will have to deposit funds at least 1 time + always have some reserve for the Work;"
I think this financial advantage would compensate them for some, if not all, of the cost of staff expansion.It has been said here that arbitration can't cope with the volume of work...
so it's easier - 5% from the client and we're done talking.
ps if it can't handle the workload then something is wrong ... something has to change... maybe - increase the staff.
The simple solution, which requires no effort, is to return 100% of the cost to the customer. I doubt there are many such cases, and it's unlikely there will be many more...
I think MQ should calculate/predict their statistics based on the change option, and choose the best one for themselves. Everyone will benefit from that. Change is necessary...
the client has not been offered any option other than to quadruple the cost of the job.
It is the responsibility of the initiating party to refuse to carry out the work after confirmation of the ToR (agreed, without deviations). But there is always one party - the client - who, regardless of the result of the work, will forfeit 5% of its value. This is a clear mistake... MQ must either be a bit altruistic and return 100% of the funds to the customer in such cases (which may indeed cause rare abuses), or slightly change the procedure of work: freeze 5% of the cost of the work and from the Developer (as already discussed here). That way MQ:
And I wonder what the programmer's fault is, the programmer has the right to refuse to work at any point, he or she is already taking a risk by messing with the tricky part of the job. In this case, the customer set a ridiculous task. And the metaquotes took a commission for the work. Only the programmer can lose his reputation to the customer. There is no agreement. If you clamp down on programmers, the work will be left on the sidelines, as it was before paid directly for the work. What is the point of programmers taking a risk? Maybe there is a point, but the price of work increases.