(litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users
-
So right now I should be working on a response to an RFQ.
One of the key question is to provide proof for a successful and quick future(!) adaptation of the product in case of Legal changes. While we have done so in the past, it is impossible to provide evidence or proof for something that lies in the future. I am really tempted to go full on here and add a whole paragraph why this is impossible to provide - however, this would certainly exclude us from the contract...Another favourite once was a user demanding a simple matrix, with 200! = 7.8xE374 elements...
-
@Kurt-C-Pause just do some intentional misinterpretation and convince yourself that what they're really asking about is a proof that at least some of the potential future changes in software could be adapted in software in timely manner. And show them past work.
-
Use the past successes as futureproofs. I mean, it's managementese they're speaking, not math.
-
@Kurt-C-Pause said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
One of the key question is to provide proof for a successful and quick future(!) adaptation of the product in case of Legal changes.
This is so vague that it can be only 1. handwaved with some simple example and forgotten about or 2. renegotiated. Choose strategy 1 if it's not making you liable in the future (i. e. you're just an employee), 2 otherwise. The person legally responsible should renegotiate anyway. These kind of vague clauses are designed to shift liability in case of business failure or lawsuits. Watch out for them. Business types like to push crap like that in contracts. Effectively 'we'll pay you or not, if we decide after 5 years that it's not what we wanted' etc. They're always surprised when I actually read what they cooked up and refuse to sign, but they usually can be talked into making it much more reasonable. I don't really know if this kind of BS works in court (probably not where I live - we have a special article against one-sided contracts), but I prefer to avoid the court entierly.
-
@Kurt-C-Pause "Proof" is impossible, but quick adaptation of software in the future is kinda the point of good practices™. So "give good arguments to support that you'll design this in a good clean way and not like the $0.75/hour Pakistani freelancers we hired before" would make sense.
-
@anonymous234 said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
@Kurt-C-Pause "Proof" is impossible, but quick adaptation of software in the future is kinda the point of good practices™. So "give good arguments to support that you'll design this in a good clean way and not like the $0.75/hour Pakistani freelancers we hired before" would make sense.
thats exactly the point.
They should have asked. "what processes and procedures do you have in place to react to legal changes in the domain and how are the legal changes rolled out to your customers?"
-
@sebastian-galczynski said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
@Kurt-C-Pause said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
One of the key question is to provide proof for a successful and quick future(!) adaptation of the product in case of Legal changes.
This is so vague that it can be only 1. handwaved with some simple example and forgotten about or 2. renegotiated. Choose strategy 1 if it's not making you liable in the future (i. e. you're just an employee), 2 otherwise. The person legally responsible should renegotiate anyway. These kind of vague clauses are designed to shift liability in case of business failure or lawsuits. Watch out for them. Business types like to push crap like that in contracts. Effectively 'we'll pay you or not, if we decide after 5 years that it's not what we wanted' etc. They're always surprised when I actually read what they cooked up and refuse to sign, but they usually can be talked into making it much more reasonable. I don't really know if this kind of BS works in court (probably not where I live - we have a special article against one-sided contracts), but I prefer to avoid the court entierly.
This is an RequestForQuotes, not yet the contract. So it is a merry mix between functionalities, marketing, processes, legal questions, preemtive agreement to some boilerplate stuff (yes, we pay women and men equally. yes, we do respect the environmental laws. Yes, also
the laws regarding recycling... ), prices etc.My guess is: all the quotes are left in the rain, taken inside by virgins on a full moon night, dried with the heat of smeltering incense, burned by holy fire, the ashes scatterd over an ouija board and then some winner is declared or something. (Because I can not imagine a fair evaluation process with the way the qualifying questions are asked)
In a contract, I would definitly try to negociate as you rightly propose. But most of our customers get our license contract anyway. Those that refuse our contract and want their own better make it worth our while, cause then we bring out the lawyers as well...
-
@Kurt-C-Pause said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
Yes, also the laws regarding recycling...
With that much reuse of dodgy old code from past contracts, you better believe you're obeying the law on recycling!
-
@Kurt-C-Pause Specifically? I remember some lawyers being upset that the development team (both of us) could see cases and files in "their" system. We wrote the code, we managed the databases, we managed the servers, we did the troubleshooting. We couldn't do our jobs (especially the last part) without access and they couldn't stop us unless they hired several additional people that would be idle most of the time. Went 'round and 'round for months on that. I think in the end we just lied to shut them up.
Generally? When I was a contractor, every project distilled down to "fix this mess without changing anything." I could write a book on that mountain of stupidity.
-
@Zenith said in (litteraly) impossible demands by Clients / Users:
I could write a book on that mountain of stupidity.
Book may be overdoing it, but threads are, you know, free.
