[Silhouette]

That may be true, but it's a risky thing to do just to see if someone's serious. The moment you refer me to real laywers, you have probably removed any opportunity for me to be nice to you and settle the disagreement amicably, even if you subsequently realise you've been an ass all along and want to make it all go away quietly. If nothing else, if I think you're asking me to speak to your lawyers, it's probably not me who's calling, it's my lawyers. And now everyone's paying someone's legal fees, and if you were trying to screw me, I'm pretty much going to make sure it's you who pays everything if at all possible. (Clearly this varies somewhat by where you are and how your local legal system works.)

[tptacek]

Are we debating? I don't think we are. I think "send it to legal@" was poor messaging; "send it to finance@" would have accomplished the same thing without escalating the situation.

Having said that: "send it to legal@" is not "breach of contract". Sorry, it just isn't.

[Silhouette]

I think we probably agree here. I was just pointing out that your alternative suggestion (how_serious_are_you@) might not be much of an improvement from a business point of view over the original (fuckoff@). Ultimately, asking someone to contact legal@ is still significantly escalating a situation where there appears to be very little potential upside from doing so, whatever the underlying intent might be.

[tptacek]

Escalating the situation or overtly signaling displeasure is a bad strategy.

Expressing passive skepticism and slow-rolling an invoice you don't believe you should pay is not a bad strategy, at least not always. There is an upside to it.

[greatreorx]

> Expressing passive skepticism and slow-rolling an invoice you don't believe you should pay is not a bad strategy.

Do you not believe the vendor's story? or are you saying it's okay to be a dick as long as you delude yourself into thinking you don't owe people money?