|
|
|
|
|
by ProllyInfamous
862 days ago
|
|
I like that this "malicious compliance" doesn't immediately deactivate the client's website, but eventually achieves same outcome (either payment or site deactivation). From a jurist POV, I think I'd be much more forgiving if this "solution" ended up in a courtroom (i.e. I would side with the fade-out site's creator). BRILLIANT! |
|
FYI civil breach of contract cases like this almost never go to a jury in the US. Mandatory arbitration or small claims for small amounts, heard by a retired judge or professional arbitrator. The process takes a long time, costs money and your time, and very often ends up with a "split the difference" settlement. Lawsuits are public record, the client will badmouth you to everyone, and you can't fix the damage to your reputation.