[consulting] Contract > Developer liable for bugs?

[Mariano Barcia]

Totally agree with Adam's point
--mariano



On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Adam Mordecai <mordecai at advomatic.com>wrote:

> I asked Aaron Welch, my business partner and legal expert on this
> stuff and this was his response:
>
> NONONONONO nononono no. no. no. no. N.O.
>
> Do not do this. That is totally fucked, no way, no how. No. you should
> always limit your liability to the amount of money paid to you for the
> work, allowing for additional liability or offering a warranty or
> saying that the product is suitable for any particular purpose is not
> acceptable. The client should bear the risks of operating the product
> for any particular purpose, not you for making it for them, to their
> specifications. If you sign this, you will be fucked. Get a lawyer. I
> am not a lawyer, but this would be totally not acceptable to us, it
> should not be to you unless you are being paid an absurd amount and
> you have a huge errors and omissions general liability insurance policy.
>
> I'd be happy to share the contract we use, that specifically says the
> opposite of this.
>
> -A
> Adam Mordecai
> Advomatic Partner
> ---------
> AIM: AdamMordecai
> Main: (303) 733-0215
> Cell: (646) 625-9010
> Fax: (213) 402-3541
> ----------
> Advomatic
> 243 5th Ave, Suite 460
> New York, NY 10016
> http://www.advomatic.com
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2008, at 8/6/08•4:06 , Morbus Iff wrote:
>
>
> I've been writing software (for hire or otherwise) for ten years or so.
>
> I've never run into an instance, or heard of a case where, once a piece
> of software has been "shipped" or "finished", the developer of that
> software is liable for Things That Go Wrong With It. (I'm exempting
> trojans and viruses, etc. - assume legitimate software here).
>
> Specifically, I've received a contract for a new job which states that I
> (as the Consultant) would be financially liable for any bugs in my
> created Drupal code. I balked that I'd never heard of such a thing
> before and received a revised version which now reads like this:
>
>   "The Consultant will also be responsible for any damage, loss or
>   liability (whether criminal or civil) of or suffered by  the
>   Company ... in connection with any act or omission of the
>   Consultant ... In order to compensate for this, the Consultant
>   agrees to resolve any issue with his code (and his code only)
>   as it arises at no additional cost to the Company. Correcting
>   the problem code is the limit of liability to which the
>   Consultant will be held."
>
> I'm still cautious about this - while the final two lines state that my
> only liability is fixing bugs for free (which is perfectly fine with
> me), the first line still contains scares like "civil" and "criminal
> liability", "damage" and "loss". Being "responsible" for "loss" still
> sounds like I'd pay money if "problem code" caused financial damage.
>
> A few questions:
>
>  * has anyone else seen something like this?
>
>  * has anyone else /agreed/ to something like this?
>
>  * are my worries about financial responsibility accurate?
>
>  * how should I respond to this?
>
> --
> Morbus Iff ( and think about the bad things that I didn't do )
> Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
> Enjoy: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.videounderbelly.com/
> aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
> _______________________________________________
> consulting mailing list
> consulting at drupal.org
> http://lists.drupal.org/mailman/listinfo/consulting
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/consulting/attachments/20080806/35c4505b/attachment-0001.htm