Never give these rich assholes credit unless there is an airtight contract for payment.
this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
819 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60089 readers
2339 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There is no such thing as an airtight contract when dealing with Musk. He simply ignores it until you sue.
Same thing as Trump.
Doesn't matter how perfect your contract is, as long as they can afford to fight the lawsuit longer than you you're gonna lose.
You'd think people would learn to not contract with these assholes at all.
You just have to work in legal costs to anything you do. Call it an asshole tax
Or you just...stop providing the service?
“The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers,” and Twitter must give “written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the customer products…and expressly assumed liabilities for the procurement costs.”
So basically they were bespoke servers that are great for Twitter, custom designed, and definitely aren’t easy to just resell elsewhere, so because Twitter isn’t paying, the IT company is eating the loss right now
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Never give these rich assholes credit ~~unless there is an airtight contract for payment~~.
Cash on delivery is extremely rare in the business world, especially when dealing with enterprise customers. While I have no doubt many of Twitter's vendors have recently switched to COD, that is not the norm.
These types of relationships typically work on anywhere from 30 to 90 day terms, depending on the vendor, client, and their history.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Payment up front, in non negotiable bearer bonds.
“Your Honor, the board voted to pay this guy a salary of nearly that amount - per day. If it would please the court, fuck this guy and the board and please make them pay their bills.”
"Your honor, rather than pay his outstanding debts, this shiftless f***wit used 75 million dollars to fund a SuperPAC to bother people at their homes for the benefit of the Trump campaign."
Different board. That was Tesla, not Twitter.
That's how his Department Of Government Efficiency will save billions.
Seems aligned with Trump's habit of shafting his sub-contractors.
Which is what Trump wants, as he also publicly admits he just doesn’t pay bills if he doesn’t feel like it.
Looking forward to all the lawsuits between the two should he lose.
Turn off the servers
X/Twitter has its own data centers, this is for physical equipment under X's control. They need to get a judgment (which the article indicates they're working on) before they can do anything. Presumably after months to years of litigation they can then repossess the servers, but then X would probably at the last minute pay the bill.
legally, you can't. It's actually worse.
Shutting down a service that hasn't been paid for seems as simple as getting the power turned off for not paying your electric bill. Why is it worse than not paying for services?
The company seems to be a hardware provider, not a service provider. Also, they wouldn't be able to resell these machines anyway as they were custom made specifically for Twitter before musk bought it. Without a court order that would involve breaking and entering, and possible theft charges.
Makes sense, ty. I misinterpreted the situation.
They ship servers to customers, don't think they have access anymore.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Didn't he just donate 75 mil towards fascism? But can't pay his bills...
Paying bills is for poor people. Rich people don’t need to do that. How would they stay rich?
They should seize and sell his private jet.
You misspelled "harvest" and "organs".
Lol, Elon is the new Trump, what a mooch. Take away message, Never do business with these types, you will never get paid.
Strip "Leon" of his US citizenship, use a court order to take the money from his account and ship his Dork MAGA ass off to Moscow or Johannesburg.
Could you imagine how upset Republicans would be if some random Mexican immigrant used $61m of resources and didn’t pay? But if it’s a rich white guy that owes that much they are fine with it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not paying bills is an ego trip for these scumbags. Maybe it’s the only way they can get an erection.
And yet the US throws poor people in prison for not being able to afford paying their debts.
Do the world a favor and repossess that shit.
This is the efficiency of the market at work.
Soooo noone here even read the article? Just see Elon and start shitting everywhere? The company suing X was dealing with Twitter before Elon. There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, "the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries."
How about we read an article before we start spewing shit everywhere?
When you read the article, it also points to another article that goes further into this case.
...in 2014 it contracted with Twitter to provide "unique, custom-designed IT infrastructure products including rack solutions."...
Seems it was already approved in 2014 for such a long-term relationship in writing. It seems that Elon just didn't want to pay for it even though Twitter was contractual bound to pay.
load more comments
(5 replies)
There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order they are claiming is all custom made and cant be recouped, "the social media platform had not made any firm purchase order when the server dealer went ahead with its purchases and deliveries."
You're leaving out that the paragraph you're summarizing starts off with "X claims that."
One side says there was a contract. The other side says it wasn't firmed up yet into a binding contract. Neither side has come forward with their evidence.
Also, Wiwynn is also suing for negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel, which don't require a contract.
load more comments
(2 replies)
There was no purchasing contract in place when the suing company placed the $20 million dollar order
You think that companies just slap down 20mil without a contract in place?
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
Move fast and don't pay your bills
view more: next ›