How to be out of pocket by $135,000

[Irving Patrick Freleigh]

(two were busted doing the horizontal salsa in a closet,

"Horizontal salsa"

I like that. But not quite as much as "Posturepedic Polka."

[Victoria J]

While that guy is a creep and a douche, I think 135K is WAY too steep. I don't know much about contracts, but shouldn't being refused service (and perhaps a sexual harassment lawsuit) be enough?

Essentially he (and his company) are just being refused service.

As I understand it the money isn't a penalty it's the standard amount the company was paying for the services of fireheart's friends company to get ongoing support. However his behaviour was such that support cannot and willnot now be given under that contract.

The friend's company still gets to charge for the full contract because he broke the agreement not them. It's not unreasonable that they get to keep the money because when they entered into a binding contract that included terms such as you pay us 135k, we supply support, you treat our staff with basic respect, etc. the friends company needs to make business plans based on this. They decide what other contracts to take on, how many staff they'll need to give the support they're contracted to in the months ahead etc. Why should they mess up their business plans because he was a sexist pig ?

Any sensible ongoing contract to supply any service including this kind of customer contact should have a clause which states that the service will be suspended or cancelled if staff are abused and that no refund will be given. Obviously some definition of abuse should be given, and sometimes there will still be disagreements that will end up in court about whether it applies in individual cases. But it isn't that rare of a rule - I've seen it in contracts before including for telephone support for products.

Good on this company for including something so important, and sticking up for their staff when it matters.

Victoria J.

[rageaholic]

Ah, that makes sense now. Somehow, I thought he was actually required to pay 135K, but since he already paid it and breached the contract, I think it's perfectly fair.

What a douche.

[Der Cute]

I am sooo glad they're sticking it to this customer. GARGH! Sometimes I wish I could invoke a Stupid Tax or the Idiot Fee....

Cutenoob

[DGoddessChardonnay]

"Horizontal salsa"

I like that. But not quite as much as "Posturepedic Pok-er."

Edited for accuracy.

[Auto]

Please promise me you will never be in charge of any business ever. If the two sides want to continue doing business then the side that was mistreated is foolish.

Your right it would be between two business and yes a fee of that amount would be paid. Your talking businesses that most likely spend that on office supplies.

Sorry, but nobody and I mean nobody pays a $135k penalty in a contract dispute just because some claims a breach. Not even a defense contractor doing billions in business with the Pentagon.

If the tech's that big a jerk, there are cheaper ways to solve the problems he's causing that leaves everybody happy and satisfied.

The story's fishy.

[ChaoKuang]

IT work is expensive. I knew an IT guy who could get 20+k from one month of work. This was a solid contract for TEN YEARS. Any breech of contract penalty is going to be steep. As someone mentioned, people have been kicked out and banned from exericse clubs and still had to pay their fee. By breaking his contract, he's depriving them of TEN YEARS of solid business. Being purposely rude to a tech when you know it can cause your contract to terminate is technically early termination, because you're acting knowing full well what would happen.

So really, no, 135k isn't too surprising a fee for such a thing. And unless you specifically know details concerning "billion dollar Pentagon" contracts and early termination fees thereof...

It seems legit to me, especially looking at the terms, the work, and the span of the contract. They probably stood to make much more than that fee if they'd kept it.

[bsaana]

Sorry, but nobody and I mean nobody pays a $135k penalty in a contract dispute just because some claims a breach. Not even a defense contractor doing billions in business with the Pentagon.

If the tech's that big a jerk, there are cheaper ways to solve the problems he's causing that leaves everybody happy and satisfied.

The story's fishy.

Without reading the contract there is no way to know. It could have been a muti-year contract between multi-million or billion dollar companies. I know my company kinda messed something up with a new 7 year contract worth $2 million - just this fiscal year (got the number from a newspaper article) and I don't know what if any penalty was applied - but from the scarce hints and information I got it seems it might have been bad. The screwup does not involve me or my coworker that covers the state. It started back in July and things are just now smoothing out....

[jackfaire]

Sorry, but nobody and I mean nobody pays a $135k penalty in a contract dispute just because some claims a breach. Not even a defense contractor doing billions in business with the Pentagon.

You

http://www.wkyt.com/uk/headlines/64175562.html

must

http://www.aep.com/environmental/news/?id=991

be right

http://www.medlawlegalteam.com/busin...t_dispute.html

Especially not a company doing business with the pentagon

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...y/1218572.html

Bravo Auto for pointing out the error of my thinking


EDIT

Auto 135k is low for a settlement which means it was settled out of court. Continuing to do business with a company that mistreats your employees sends the message that your employees are trash and can be treated any others wish to treat them.

What is the cheaper option you propose that leaves everyone happy?

[protege]

Uh, guys? None of this really means anything--all of those articles were about events in the US. The OP is in Australia--different laws 'down under,' I'm sure.

[fireheart]

Uh, guys? None of this really means anything--all of those articles were about events in the US. The OP is in Australia--different laws 'down under,' I'm sure.

Thank you.

From what I know, the company handles both business and residential calls. The girl has had a minor altercation in the past with some random banging on her windows for money out near my place, and this really shook her up.

She's fine now, thankfully, and both her and my friend are managers in the network area.

[Canarr]

Okay... so when this whole thing started, he had six months' payment time - one month ago. How did he accrue any late fees in that time, then?

I mean, why pay before the due date, anyway? For that kind of money, six months' interest is nothing to sneer at.

[Kali]

Look, those of you who say this story is impossible are not going to believe otherwise unless Fireheart provides proof, which obviously isn't going to happen (privacy etc). Basically, either accept the story or don't, but I doubt the OP can do any more to validate it.

Personally, I think it did seem quite easy to get the guy to pay up, but I reckon that's because he spoke to a lawyer (or his company's legal team) who basically said "Look, you're in the wrong here. If you take this to court, we'll lose, and you'll have to pay the $130k plus like another $50k in legal fees. Just eat the fee and don't be a moron next time."

OR he didn't want what he said to your friend repeated in a courtroom (wife? company image?)

[ExiledV20]

Sorry, but nobody and I mean nobody pays a $135k penalty in a contract dispute just because some claims a breach. Not even a defense contractor doing billions in business with the Pentagon.

If you have a 10-year contract with the codicil that breach of contract on the part of the consumer will result in payment for the full 10 years + an early termination fee, then yes, it would happen on breach. The Suck can argue it in court, but I doubt he's going to win if that clause is in there. Likely, he consulted with his attorney and the attorney said "Look, you can pay $135k now or pay $135k + court costs + whatever else they sue you for in court - and you don't have a leg to stand on."

Uh, guys? None of this really means anything--all of those articles were about events in the US. The OP is in Australia--different laws 'down under,' I'm sure.

Contract law among the Western nations is pretty much the same, both here in the USA and in Australia. There are minor local differences, but most contract law has been agreed upon and standardized on the international level.

[PepperElf]

i'm just thinking that the sleezeball paid up because

1) He knew he was wrong
2) It might be cheaper for him to pay the bill, if the alternative is to go to court to face sexual harassment (or assault) charges... especially when he's guilty