[tjpaudio]

I find it absolutely amazing that they would let someone else handle the money that represents the life of their business. Hard to feel sorry for them. No doubt the correct thing to do would have been to delay the campaign until the banking issues were resolved. This was an amateur mistake. Yea it would be nice if we lived in a world where we could be naive and let strangers handle our money without fear but we all know thats just not the case and not prudent even if it was. I don't feel sorry for this project, lesson learned they won't make the same mistake again.

[ineedasername]

I don't think blaming the victim is a useful criticism. Trusting a vendor to perform the tasks for which they've been hired is hardly a fault. Woodshed represented this as a service they had offered clients in the past, and the client had a contractual addendum. In the world or raising money, it is extremely common, even required at times, for a fundraising partner to control some or all aspects of the financial arrangement. Indeed, many times it is this logistical coverage that is a primary service sought by the client. You protect yourself by having the appropriate contractual agreements in place, which the client did here. That is the way modern business works: Not without trust, else all business would be impossible. But with limited trust, and recourse to a legal system when the trust is betrayed. Again, this is the path taken by the client.

[slantyyz]

>> You protect yourself by having the appropriate contractual agreements in place, which the client did here.

I disagree. You protect yourself by doing your necessary homework before you even sign the contracts.

Contracts are helpful, but in the real world, getting a resolution can be very messy. Lawsuits are stressful, expensive and time consuming. If you've been through a lawsuit, you'll know that being right is often very small consolation, especially if your adversary happens to have better legal representation than you.

[ineedasername]

And in that hypothetical reality no one ever needs recourse to a legal system for contractual disputes. I've been through lawsuits, specifically for fraudulent representations made by a vendor. (We won, easily. Good record keeping and contracts saved the day) In that example and this one, it doesnt appear that additional research on the vendor would have revealed a show stopping issue ahead of time. Of course the victim could have avoided the issue with either perfect foreknowledge or private investigators rifling through a small business's financials. In the real world though, due diligence follows practicality, and uses best effort up front and contracts and lawyers just in case. Your interpretation belies the viewpoint of "someone was able to attack them therefore its their fault they got attacked"

[slantyyz]

>> And in that hypothetical reality no one ever needs recourse to a legal system for contractual disputes

I'm not saying that. But in practice, the legal system favors those who can afford the time and money to go through the process. That's why a lot of cases are settled instead of going to trial. If the case isn't particularly clear cut, it's an expensive proposition for the individual or small business, especially if you can't find a lawyer who thinks your case is worth his/her while.

>> I've been through lawsuits

You or your company? Did you pay any of the legal fees out of your own pocket?

For this specific case, we're talking about $35K being a significant chunk of money for the OP. He had to close two bank accounts because they "hit negative balance".

How much do you think they can afford to spend to fight this case before it becomes a money pit? A good lawyer requires an up-front retainer, and is easily 150/hr, those billable hours add up very quickly.

Sure the contracts might be enforceable, but he's probably going to have to borrow money to even have a chance to squeeze money out of the PR company.

You might not need to go as far as hiring a PI, but some common sense would have gone a long way. Letting someone with whom you don't have a longstanding relationship hold your money for you is generally a bad idea. I have to wonder if they even checked with the PR company's "Australian client" to see if they were legit about doing wire transfers.

[tjpaudio]

They were not hired to handle their campaign banking, that was a side deal made with a hastily written contract because the founders failed to put time into setting up the necessary accounts. This is the start-up version of going to a check cashing service. We all cut corners trying to push our product out the door but I do think keeping the books in-house and having your own bank account is pretty sound advice, not victim blaming.