On Sep 14, 7:16-pm, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> But hey - it's you who will be standing in the bread line, not me (or
> your attorney).
Haven't you used that bread line line before? Isn't it getting a
little stale?

LOL, sorry, just kidding.

That ("the bread line") phrase evoked images of Henry Fonda as Tom
Joads in "The Grapes of Wrath"; and several black and white Three
Stooges episodes, as well as an early "Tom and Jerry" cartoon.

But seriously folks, have you thought about turning collections over
to Lisa Nowak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Nowak -- not sure of
an entry in Probert Encyclopedia (sorry Matt))? She'd get the job
done, or at least get you a lot of free media coverage".

Ok, my work here is done.
--
Reporter
"---- I love Wikipedia"
http://www.wikipedia.org/

Matt Probert wrote:
> The industry doesn't matter, but say you agree a job and price, in
> writing with a client. You carry out your side of the deal, and supply
> the goods. But they then fail to pay. You send them a polite reminder,
> nothing. You meet with them and they accept that the job was completed
> to their satisfaction, and in full, and offer to pay. And yet still
> fail to pay any of the debt.
>
> Setting aside legal action to reclaim the debt, for reasons apparent
> to anyone who has ever tried it. What about naming and shaming? How do
> you feel about the morality of publishing their name and photograph
> (images copyright me, by the way) along with a caption describing how
> they didn't pay for their work?
>
> Matt Probert Photography
> http://www.matt-probert.co.uk
>
>


A wise man once told me, "When you wrestle with a pig, you both get
dirty. The difference is, the pig likes it." Another wise man told me,
"Living well is the best revenge."

Once you've made arrangements for collections and/or legal action, my
advice is to turn off the computer, go for a long walk in nature, spend
some time with friends & family, pour yourself a drink, and generally
have a great day. The minute you stop thinking about it, you've won.

--
David Hennessy
http://maidix.com/

Matt Probert wrote:
> What about naming and shaming? How do
> you feel about the morality of publishing their name and photograph
> (images copyright me, by the way) along with a caption describing how
> they didn't pay for their work?

Basically, there's nothing *useful* you can do; your method may make you
feel better for 20 minutes, but other than putting off new customers, will
achieve zero.

Much better to avoid such situations, by taking money up front from all new
customers.

Like everyone else does on the Interweb.

It's not really a question of morality, but a question of sound business
principles and good 'ole common sense.
--

Andrew
seo2seo.com
sick-site-syndrome.com

UK Residents:
STOP THE "10p Tax Ripoff"
Sign the petition to stop the government stealing from the
very poorest tell your friends about this petition:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/10penceband/

"Matt Probert" wrote in message
news:48ca6ca3.15428578@news.freenetname.co.uk...
> The industry doesn't matter, but say you agree a job and price, in
> writing with a client. You carry out your side of the deal, and supply
> the goods. But they then fail to pay. You send them a polite reminder,
> nothing. You meet with them and they accept that the job was completed
> to their satisfaction, and in full, and offer to pay. And yet still
> fail to pay any of the debt.
>
> Setting aside legal action to reclaim the debt, for reasons apparent
> to anyone who has ever tried it. What about naming and shaming? How do
> you feel about the morality of publishing their name and photograph
> (images copyright me, by the way) along with a caption describing how
> they didn't pay for their work?
>
> Matt Probert Photography
> http://www.matt-probert.co.uk
>

At least in the USA, I'd be careful about "naming and shaming" publicly,
such as by posting a notice on their web page that the site was taken down
for nonpayment, etc. It's very easy for your client to allege that they have
not paid because they are disputing the quality of your work, etc., and that
your "shaming" constitutes commercial libel that has severely hurt their
business -- and then make a legal claim against YOU for damages. Suddenly
you are facing potentially significant legal bills.

I think you'd be safer to just take the site down and post a "Site
Temporarily Out of Service" notice. That will let them know you are serious.

You should make sure your contract gives you ownership and control of your
work until you have been paid in full. It should state that only after
payment will you transfer copyright and intellectual property to the client.
That way they can't claim to believe they already own the work they haven't
paid for.

It also makes sense to specify the schedule for payment -- e.g., one third
up front, another third after delivery of first drafts, and final payment
prior to release of ownership to them. The contract can also include a
clause that if payments are not made on time (such as within 30 days of
invoicing or due date), you will charge a significant re-invoicing fee, such
as $200. For a small busines, or a stingy big one, the desire to avoid that
fee may be enough to shake them into paying up.

Alex

On Sep 26, 2:38-pm, "Alex" <tuchasoffentisch@_NO_SPAM_gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> At least in the USA, I'd be careful about "naming and shaming" publicly,
> such as by posting a notice on their web page that the site was taken down
> for nonpayment, etc. It's very easy for your client to allege that they have
> not paid because they are disputing the quality of your work, etc., and that
> your "shaming" constitutes commercial libel that has severely hurt their
> business -- and then make a legal claim against YOU for damages. Suddenly
> you are facing potentially significant legal bills.
>
> I think you'd be safer to just take the site down and post a "Site
> Temporarily Out of Service" notice. That will let them know you are serious.
>
> You should make sure your contract gives you ownership and control of your
> work until you have been paid in full. It should state that only after
> payment will you transfer copyright and intellectual property to the client.
> That way they can't claim to believe they already own the work they haven't
> paid for.
>
> It also makes sense to specify the schedule for payment -- e.g., one third
> up front, another third after delivery of first drafts, and final payment
> prior to release of ownership to them. The contract can also include a
> clause that if payments are not made on time (such as within 30 days of
> invoicing or due date), you will charge a significant re-invoicing fee, such
> as $200. For a small busines, or a stingy big one, the desire to avoid that
> fee may be enough to shake them into paying up.
>
> Alex

Excellent points. Otherwise this thread has turned into "A Question
of Snore-ality".