Technology

59116 readers

2900 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

819

Server dealer keeps hitting at Elon Musk for $61 million bill — Wiwynn sues X for unpaid IT infrastructure products (www.tomshardware.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

70 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 38 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Cash on delivery is extremely rare in the business world, especially when dealing with enterprise customers. While I have no doubt many of Twitter's vendors have recently switched to COD, that is not the norm.

These types of relationships typically work on anywhere from 30 to 90 day terms, depending on the vendor, client, and their history.

[–] undefined@links.hackliberty.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That might be true, but I think the point is that maybe it shouldn’t be rare (especially when dealing with these guys).

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That wasn't their point. They assumed that billing terms aren't already predicated upon an "airtight" contract. I'm not sure how they're defining airtight, but a contract is a legal agreement, and when there's a dispute, those get addressed in court, such as this, right now.

This misunderstanding isn't entirely unreasonable. If someone hasn't dealt with these types of transactions in a business setting, it's not reasonable to expect them to understand how they work, or why they function like that.

[–] undefined@links.hackliberty.org 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don’t think it’s hard to understand regardless what their experience with billing terms may be.

“Don’t give them credit” still makes sense to me as someone who has that experience. It also makes sense to me as just a normal human that maybe we shouldn’t just let unreliable parties pay later given their wild (basically public at this point) history with paying people.

[–] pandapoo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Did you even read the article...?

Because if you had, you would know that the credit terms were established prior to Musk's takeover.