ClaimsCourtFilter: A web design client of ours had a verbal contract with us, approved both the design and the logo, and then reneged due to a "misunderstanding," after most of the work had been completed.
(This is ridiculously long because I'm also wondering if we're out of line or insane here, or if we're in the right. Basically: Verbal contract with client, did work, she reneges at very end to go with someone else.
Click here to skip to the details and hit the real question. [If named anchor links work...]
Here's the long-winded breakdown: Met client through a networking group we're a member of. The member who referred us did so to his boss, whom we met with twice and spent several hours discussing things with. After meeting a second time and further fleshing out their requirements, we presented a physical contract which she opted not to sign at the time, so we could perhaps drop a feature and save some money. (We determined it would be a negligible savings for her and told her so. She still wanted the "new" contract.)
During this time, because we had a rapport through the networking group, we wanted to streamline this production, sent it off to our designers and had them crank out a complete logo and site design pretty rapidly. She approved (in email) the logo AND the site design and effectively gave a go ahead and a "what's next."
Upon reviewing our contract again, she questioned (at 10am) the following clause:
Authorization. The above-named Client is engaging [us], as an independent contractor for the specific purpose of designing a website to be published on a [us-owned] server.
She asked if she'd be required to host with us, or if she could continue using her existing host, and closed with: "Once I hear back from you I will get this signed and cut the check."
In meetings all day, we replied at 4pm:
The reason we push our clients to use our servers for hosting is because we can guarantee a level of service that we cannot when using another host. There is frequently a number of settings or applications not installed or properly configured, and it stands to impede us and slows down our development time while we wait for their support to make the necessary changes.
(This is completely true and our basic philosophy since we charge an almost-negligible amount for hosting, but we had discussed this earlier in person, and she seemed to understand and be okay with it, so I didn't think I was coming on strong here.)
She replied at 5pm:
I understand why you want to host the site what I am asking as I asked in the first meeting is it absolutely necessary? I can find out what they will or will not support prior to any work being done. I need to find out how long I have paid for and I don’t want to just throw it away and I am not 100% ready to move again. Both times I have moved my hosting it was a nightmare. I need to know if you are still wanting to proceed even if we do not move our hosting right away?
We replied within the hour stating that, since their site used ASP, we knew they were not on a PHP (which we required) package, and thus, didn't know if they could switch within their current provider. We closed with:
As we have mentioned during our discussions, you will not have to host with us but you will need to use a host that provides PHP and MySQL. We currently have the new site running in one of our development servers to work out a few more design tweaks so that the site matches a bit better with the logo/color you selected. Let me know how much time is left on your contract with 1and1 and when/where/if you would like to re-launch the site on a different server or not.
This is where it gets weird. She responds three days later with a letter from her hosting company saying she can jump to a PHP server no problem, but that:
It is my understanding I would just need to convert my 1&1 package to linux should we use your content management design. Due to this set back I have decided to interview a couple other web design companies that do not require us to have our site hosted with them. Should I decide to use the logo you have created what would this cost be?
I will wait to hear from you in regards to the logo.
From here, she continued with the interviewing of other clients, accused us of not being ethical, and further stated that we were clearly not connecting with her expectation of customer service. Within about two days. We made several calls to our point man, the guy who initially referred us and was there throughout all emails and meetings. She complained that we hadn't called
her, despite the fact that we did last week (she wasn't there) and that our phones also ring. (They don't just dial.)
This is all by way of saying that I think she's being unreasonable, and trying to back out by latching on to the smallest chink she could find. She went on about how "this isn't about the money, it's about customer service," and how "other web design companies knew the ins and outs of 1&1's hosting plans, and I would expect you to know the same."
Clearly, there's a lesson learned in not performing work without a completed, signed physical contract and a retainer check in hand, but again, there were extenuating circumstances, and we figured they were good for it, so to speak.
Our course of action is as such:
- Invoice for work completed anyway. Since most of it is done (and not just the logo), and was authorized, I'll attach the emails wherein she granted authorization, highlighted, and send it certified mail.
- Have lawyer (friend) draft letter demanding payment.
- Bring to small-claims court. (It's at the upper level of the small claims side of things.)
Are we crazy? Or did we have authorization to proceed?
What can we expect from small claims court? A tame form of Judge Judy style justice? I know we file through our court and they're served a notice to appear. Are we liable for anything if we lose? What can we do to be prepared? Any idea what our chances might be with a verbal contract? (In Arizona)
We
are talking to some lawyer-folk, but I want to know if we're just insane from an outsiders perspective, or if she's trying to weasel out here. And more, for personal experiences with small-claims court.
Thanks for reading (skimming) this sojourn of a post. And for your experiences/take on things.
You're not crazy for wanting to be paid, but i have no idea about the merits of right or wrong except to say that as excerpted, from your point of view, it sounds like she freaked and is a flake. It does not sound like she is trying to get something for nothing as she offered to buy the logo and she is not in possession of the work. She likely id have some bad experiences with changing hosts and is in an irrational panic about it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 3:31 AM on January 31, 2007