Defendant used non-expert developers without Plaintiff's knowledge
The expectation for somebody hiring a company to develop a complex website is that the company's best most knowledgeable and
experienced employees are going to be responsible for developing it. When Plaintiff approached Defendant and provided
Defendant with the scope of the [redacted] project, Defendant was eager to retain Plaintiff's business. However,
Defendant did not warn Plaintiff that Defendant had no intention of using expert developers for [redacted] -
(i.e. expert developers were not going to write any of the code for [redacted] nor troubleshoot any unforeseen problems the site might experience).
Instead, Defendant's middle-level developers were going to handle all development duties[5].
Plaintiff was unaware of Defendant's two-tier development staff, and had Plaintiff known,
he would have opted for expert development only, because the new site was crucial to the viability of Plaintiff's online business.
Proper business practice is for contractors to inform clients of their options,
especially when the quality of the end product is at stake and the product is very complex.
Defendant omitted this key information from Plaintiff fearing the higher cost for expert development would dissuade Plaintiff from hiring Defendant[6].
Unfortunately, Defendant's decision proved much more costly to Plaintiff than expert development ever could have.
On November 8, 2011 Plaintiff was informed that experts had only developed the architecture for [redacted],
after Plaintiff inquired about increased development fees quoted by Defendant for development planned to start in 2012[7].
From the site launch date in July 2009 to November 2011, the seemingly insurmountable website problems never prompted
Defendant to volunteer expert services to Plaintiff[8] who would demonstrate in mid 2012 that they were capable of fixing those problems[9].
The revelation that Plaintiff's website which had suffered embarrassing malfunctions for years, countless hours of downtime,
loss of traffic, credibility, and millions in potential revenue could have been averted if not avoided had
Defendant put expert developers on the job was shocking.
One of Defendant's most frequent explanations for continuous [redacted] malfunctions was that the website architecture was very complex[10].
However, [redacted] was no more complex than any of its competitor sites, yet those sites had not been plagued with uptime and speed issues.
Defendant was irresponsible, negligent,
and reckless by providing lower quality developers to work on Plaintiff's complex site,
and not volunteering to put expert developers on the job after [redacted] launched and it became abundantly clear that higher skilled developers
were needed to develop and maintain the site in working order.
The expectation for somebody hiring a company to develop a complex website is that the company's best most knowledgeable and
experienced employees are going to be responsible for developing it. When Plaintiff approached Defendant and provided
Defendant with the scope of the [redacted] project, Defendant was eager to retain Plaintiff's business. However,
Defendant did not warn Plaintiff that Defendant had no intention of using expert developers for [redacted] -
(i.e. expert developers were not going to write any of the code for [redacted] nor troubleshoot any unforeseen problems the site might experience).
Instead, Defendant's middle-level developers were going to handle all development duties[5].
Plaintiff was unaware of Defendant's two-tier development staff, and had Plaintiff known,
he would have opted for expert development only, because the new site was crucial to the viability of Plaintiff's online business.
Proper business practice is for contractors to inform clients of their options,
especially when the quality of the end product is at stake and the product is very complex.
Defendant omitted this key information from Plaintiff fearing the higher cost for expert development would dissuade Plaintiff from hiring Defendant[6].
Unfortunately, Defendant's decision proved much more costly to Plaintiff than expert development ever could have.
On November 8, 2011 Plaintiff was informed that experts had only developed the architecture for [redacted],
after Plaintiff inquired about increased development fees quoted by Defendant for development planned to start in 2012[7].
From the site launch date in July 2009 to November 2011, the seemingly insurmountable website problems never prompted
Defendant to volunteer expert services to Plaintiff[8] who would demonstrate in mid 2012 that they were capable of fixing those problems[9].
The revelation that Plaintiff's website which had suffered embarrassing malfunctions for years, countless hours of downtime,
loss of traffic, credibility, and millions in potential revenue could have been averted if not avoided had
Defendant put expert developers on the job was shocking.
One of Defendant's most frequent explanations for continuous [redacted] malfunctions was that the website architecture was very complex[10].
However, [redacted] was no more complex than any of its competitor sites, yet those sites had not been plagued with uptime and speed issues.
Defendant was irresponsible, negligent,
and reckless by providing lower quality developers to work on Plaintiff's complex site,
and not volunteering to put expert developers on the job after [redacted] launched and it became abundantly clear that higher skilled developers
were needed to develop and maintain the site in working order.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий