undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfat0wl12y ago0 comments

Yeah it's not like I'd use a threat like "I'll disconnect all your accounts!" but if they have some EC2 instance they don't understand how to operate it does give you some leverage since they will be needing some admin done at some point in the near future. I really doubt they can sue you for refusing to perform maintenance on their systems since we as programmers do not become indentured servants simply from having done business with them in the past. Tons of high-end engineers leave big projects all the time with the attitude of "well, you should've realized I might not be around forever" and it hurts projects but that's capitalism, it's one of the few rights that give employees an edge in the market.

If we never had an agreement for me to document all my work (extremely common) then the best they can do is say "hand over the keys" but they can't make you drive. If they're willing to invest in a new engineer's learning curve, the problems must be way deeper than 1 bill & you should've seen it coming, enough to write out a formal contract for that last bit. In hostile workplaces contracts should be the norm, sure, but I just try to avoid those situations to begin with.

Good advice on the email bit, but I kindof just assume that those count as written records. Either courts acknowledge them or they don't I'm not sure that explicitly saying they do really changes much.

Also, you say "there is a contract when you agree to exchange services for money" but if they don't pay you... didn't they already break that contract? Why would you have to do due diligence (maintenance) for someone who refuses to acknowledge your initial agreement?

0 comments

Silhouette12y ago

I really doubt they can sue you for refusing to perform maintenance on their systems

Of course they can. In most first world jurisdictions, anyone is free to bring a lawsuit against anyone else over anything, and then it's up to the court to decide on the merits of the case. If the court finds that the case was without merit, they might be able to compensate the successful party in some way depending on your particular legal system, but that would probably happen later.

What's more, if you created a system for someone, that system requires maintenance, your original contract did not specify who was responsible for that maintenance, and your clients sue claiming that they already paid for you to do that work and you're refusing to do it, you could well find yourself on the wrong end of a judgement.

In short, you seem to have quite a few misunderstandings about the basics of how contract law works, unless your local jurisdiction is a lot different to most. This is exactly why you should have everything clearly specified in a written contract, and it's also why paying an "expensive" lawyer to give you proper advice in your particular situation is almost certainly a good investment. Probably you should expect to spend significant time with a real lawyer for your first contract, so you have some idea of the general legal areas you need to consider, and then depending on how things go you might find just a quick review by someone who knows what they're doing is sufficient for a lot of later work.

fat0wlOP12y ago

Not to sound confrontational but I think you have quite a few misunderstandings about the software industry and at-will employment. Never have I ever seen any situation where an engineer is beholden to a client without having signed a long-term service contract or employment agreement.

Silhouette12y ago

In most places an individual can't be compelled to do much of anything for a client or employer regardless of what a contract says, since generic laws against slavery and similar concepts will apply. This is true almost everywhere in the first world, whether or not it has at-will employment. Normally there are some special legal provisions for cases where you need this not to apply, such as the military or emergency services.

However, it is entirely possible that a client could successfully claim back much of the compensation they paid for the original work via a civil suit if they subsequently argued that the original fee included maintenance and that maintenance was not in fact being carried out.

If it could be argued that the lack of maintenance also resulted in other damage to the client, they could potentially go after compensation for that damage as well. In the absence of a written contract putting clear (and legally enforceable) limits on such things, that could be far more expensive than just paying back the original revenues.

As an aside, this is particularly dangerous for freelancers, because if you don't have a written agreement making clear who the client was actually contracting to do the work, a court might find that it was the freelancer personally who was party to the agreement and not any corporate entity they normally work through. That would leave no legal shield to protect the freelancer from losing everything they personally own to settle a severe damages award.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfat0wl12y ago0 comments

0 comments

Silhouette12y ago

I really doubt they can sue you for refusing to perform maintenance on their systems

fat0wlOP12y ago

Silhouette12y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse