| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Language Translation Forum » Unpaid invoices...
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Amy... |
 Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I have been working for one particular company for a number of years, and
over the last year they have become very slow at paying. Now I am in the
position of being owed invoices dating back to November last year, with
cheques being sent irregularly to cover part of the outstanding amount but
not all. Having gone two months without receiving anything, I finally
received a cheque last week (again, only for part of the amount
outstanding), following several emails requesting payment, but the cheque
has just been returned to me unpaid (I did not incur any fees for this).
What should I do next? It is a tricky situation, because I have come to
know the company owner quite well, and he was always a very quick payer in
the past. I know this is not happening because he doesn't want to pay me,
but because he is having difficulty in doing so. I am no longer taking on
new projects for this company.
I am UK-based, and so is the company.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
Amy |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| mb... |
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 8, 9:09 am, "Amy" <nospample... at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote:
...
Quote: What should I do next? It is a tricky situation, because I have come to
know the company owner quite well, and he was always a very quick payer in
the past. I know this is not happening because he doesn't want to pay me,
but because he is having difficulty in doing so. I am no longer taking on
new projects for this company.
...
Thanks in advance for your advice.
I'd say make public the name of that company in order to prevent other
colleagues to be suckered in your place. Not that you can avoid it
anymore: you'd be hard put answering the unfortunate translator who
accepts a job for them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 8, 5:06 pm, Owain <owain47... at (no spam) stirlingcity.coo.uk> wrote:
Quote: Amy wrote:
I have been working for one particular company for a number of years, and
over the last year they have become very slow at paying. ... the cheque
has just been returned to me unpaid (I did not incur any fees for this)..
What should I do next? It is a tricky situation, because I have come to
know the company owner quite well, and he was always a very quick payer in
the past. I know this is not happening because he doesn't want to pay me,
but because he is having difficulty in doing so. I am no longer taking on
new projects for this company.
I would suggest you sue whilst the company is still solvent and has some
assets. If you wait until it is insolvent you will join all the other
creditors and be lucky to get anything.
If he can't pay you he can take out a bank loan at his expense. Why
should you provide his working capital interest-free.
Also see the Late Payment Legislation for small businesses, which might
or might not be relevant (I don't know if it applies if the *debtor* is
a small business)www.berr.gov.ukHome> Better Business Framework> Enterprise and Small
Business> Information for Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs
Access to Finance> Late Paymenthttp://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file37581.pdf
Owain
A:
My thoughts are from a jurisdiction a continent away, so their
helpfulness will be circumscribed by any parallels research proves
extant in your legal system, though the
general strategy would be more universal.
First, pull any pertinent records of legal proceedings against the
agency. Look at the judgments. Contact any opposing litigants,
translators or relevant others for their
insights. Consult at payment practices lists. Prowl the Internet for
mentions. Is this a limited
liability concern? Is anyone personally actionable? Are there any
assets of sufficient worth to
satisfy your debt? In short, size up the entity and your ability to
successfully proceed
against them by various means.
Owain has made a valid observation. If your investigations give fear
that your debtor agency is in a death spiral, hesitation in acting
may be fatal. In the domain of my familiarity, knowingly uttering
(writing) a bad check on an account is itself an offense. The local
state authority here will pursue these matters separately on the basis
of said ordnance for a modest percentage fee if reimbursement of the
original amount is made before trial. Recovery by trial judgment can
result in a treble statutory penalty. See whether you can utilize
kindred methods locally.
Concluding that a hard line is advisable, be resolute, polite and fast
about it. Should you have the protection of free speech against
accusations of libel, picketing and leafleting an entity
will be an embarrassing alarm clock to any slumber or dismissals of
your energetic conviction. If an ability to pay exists, this will find
it out and often yield results long before the turgid reflex of the
court system would trace its arc. Not that you can't demonstrate and
file suit at the same time for maximum emphasis and response. If you
do go on parade, witnesses are obligatory seconds for various
reasons. Announce yourself before your first appearance and guarantee
return performances at specified impending dates. If you don't get
appropriate interim material redress, then do what you say.
Should you, for some reasons, find a softer trajectory tenable given
the likely survival of the agency and your associated future benefit,
a simple certified letter stating the obvious complaint and asking the
owner if he would not unfortunately have to pursue the debt if he were
in your place might be an interesting opening when adjoined to the
firm assertion that you must be made whole. Again, if you end wagering
on the capacity and final willingness of the agency to pay in full,
you might indeed say that you will do work for them on the basis of
full cash payment before delivery of any translation plus an extra sum
from their end toward payment of your accumulated debt with interest.
Leaving the agency with some residue in this formula would also be
calculated to make this practical to their palate.
There are many tactical variations on this theme you can deduce. Good
luck. And bring
us an interesting translation question if what we have given from us
is something to you.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Owain... |
| Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Amy wrote:
Quote: I have been working for one particular company for a number of years, and
over the last year they have become very slow at paying. ... the cheque
has just been returned to me unpaid (I did not incur any fees for this).
What should I do next? It is a tricky situation, because I have come to
know the company owner quite well, and he was always a very quick payer in
the past. I know this is not happening because he doesn't want to pay me,
but because he is having difficulty in doing so. I am no longer taking on
new projects for this company.
I would suggest you sue whilst the company is still solvent and has some
assets. If you wait until it is insolvent you will join all the other
creditors and be lucky to get anything.
If he can't pay you he can take out a bank loan at his expense. Why
should you provide his working capital interest-free.
Also see the Late Payment Legislation for small businesses, which might
or might not be relevant (I don't know if it applies if the *debtor* is
a small business)
www.berr.gov.uk Home> Better Business Framework> Enterprise and Small
Business> Information for Small Business Owners and Entrepreneurs>
Access to Finance> Late Payment
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file37581.pdf
Owain |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| marek... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Amy" <nospamplease at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fc_mk.9$GP7.3 at (no spam) newsfe23.ams2...
Quote: I have been working for one particular company for a number of years, and
I wish I could know which company it is. For my own sake 
btw, making their name public would be a breach of trust, I think. I wish
you provided a clue how to make contact with you.
marek |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 11, 4:01 am, "marek" <ma... at (no spam) berdyczow.com> wrote:
Quote: "Amy" <nospample... at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fc_mk.9$GP7.3 at (no spam) newsfe23.ams2...
I have been working for one particular company for a number of years, and
I wish I could know which company it is. For my own sake
btw, making their name public would be a breach of trust, I think. I wish
you provided a clue how to make contact with you.
marek
M:
Here, it appears the agency has no higher duty than its promises--
which it has
violated in not paying and in fraudulently issuing a bad check--and
the debtor has no immediate interests more pressing than her own. She,
unless English law somersaults from expectation, has no general
ethical or legal constraint preventing her from truthfully announcing
the transgressions of a debtor which she may publicly pursue in court.
If she can convince the wayward agency that she will both forcefully
reveal and act on its malfeasance, that may be enough to convince it
to pay for a private resolution which may enjoin her to silence.
However unfortunately, that will abet the continued cheating of
unaware others. Whether her conscience can bear that disregard of the
commonweal is a matter for her sleep.
At the very least, a sense of obligation to the wider community of
vulnerable translators should both move her to openly identify the
agency if she does nothing or point out any bankruptcy filings that
eventuate.
Assuming a conciliatory approach her deem, the OP might do well to
send the debtor a copy of our thread and ask him which options he
would exercise were roles reversed, allowing said person the casual
discovery of nary a tear dropped on his behalf. Nonetheless,
I think this posture would not have high prospects of success. From
the evident contempt with which the agency has treated its contract,
from the untold string of broken promises and
from the worthless check so cavalierly written, my guess is that the
debtor has come
to the twisted rationalization that someone who takes this deserves
this. Maybe my
surmise is awry. Maybe there is a heart-rending reason underlying all
of this. But, if
so, how would confessing that personal trial and asking for
arrangements be more loathsome than lying and cheating someone else?
If movement is at all on the table, the one prerequisite would be
determination of
liable parties and their assets. If this is a corporate enterprise run
by a fellow living out of a truck, the best deal may be with
amnesia.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| elipsett... |
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 2:59 pm, Edward Hennessey <halozzyzxh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote:
She,
unless English law somersaults from expectation, has no general
ethical or legal constraint preventing her from truthfully announcing
the transgressions of a debtor which she may publicly pursue in court.
This may be true in many English-speaking nations, but it is worth
noting that in Japan you can be successfully sued for libel even if
your statements are found to be true.
I would be very careful about how any such information disclosure is
worded, and strongly suggest only stating the indisuptible facts...
Let other people draw their own conclusions, and avoid saying anything
you can't demonstrate in court.
FWIW and YMMV
====Edward Lipsett |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Thor Kottelin... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Amy" <nospamplease at (no spam) ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Fc_mk.9$GP7.3 at (no spam) newsfe23.ams2...
Quote: I am in the position of being owed invoices dating back to November last
year, with cheques being sent irregularly to cover part of the
outstanding amount but not all.
What should I do next?
I am UK-based, and so is the company.
Hi Amy,
Perhaps the documents
<URL:http://www.fit-europe.org/vault/badpayers/QG12-uk.pdf> ("Bringing a
Small Claim in the County Court") and
<URL:http://www.fit-europe.org/vault/badpayers/links-tips-uk.pdf> ("Some
Links and Tips"), on the FIT-Europe site, would be useful in your
situation.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
Language services: http://www.anta.net/sw/translation.shtml |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 12:20 am, elipsett <translat... at (no spam) intercomltd.com> wrote:
Quote: On Aug 12, 2:59 pm, Edward Hennessey <halozzyzxh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
She,
unless English law somersaults from expectation, has no general
ethical or legal constraint preventing her from truthfully announcing
the transgressions of a debtor which she may publicly pursue in court.
This may be true in many English-speaking nations, but it is worth
noting that in Japan you can be successfully sued for libel even if
your statements are found to be true.
EL:
Amusing. Of course, you always affirm the rules of the road before you
drive. IIRC, somewhere in your area and in other places I am
particularly
able to remember, historical practice often saw an aggrieved person
stationing
themselves outside the place of an individual who had done them a
wrong.
Sometimes this presence might be accompanied by a hunger strike or
verbal
remonstration of the offender. In simplest form, the steadfast
suffering of a silent
petitioner would pose sincere social discomfort for all but the most
calloused
opposite.
Quote: I would be very careful about how any such information disclosure is
worded, and strongly suggest only stating the indisuptible facts...
Let other people draw their own conclusions, and avoid saying anything
you can't demonstrate in court.
Simple truths cut quick. She could always enlarge the rubber check to
placard
size and float it on helium balloons....
By the way, you should have an ellipse trammel for a logo. A picture
didn't quickly come on the web which rarity makes understandable even
though
the instrument would be easy to fabricate.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Lanarcam... |
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2008 3:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
elipsett wrote:
Quote: On Aug 12, 2:59 pm, Edward Hennessey <halozzyzxh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
She,
unless English law somersaults from expectation, has no general
ethical or legal constraint preventing her from truthfully announcing
the transgressions of a debtor which she may publicly pursue in court.
This may be true in many English-speaking nations, but it is worth
noting that in Japan you can be successfully sued for libel even if
your statements are found to be true.
I would be very careful about how any such information disclosure is
worded, and strongly suggest only stating the indisuptible facts...
Let other people draw their own conclusions, and avoid saying anything
you can't demonstrate in court.
FWIW and YMMV
I was also quite surprised to discover recently that,
in France also, you can be sued for libel (diffamation)
irrespective of the veracity of what was told.
Another thought about the case, it would perhaps be
wise not to antagonize someone with whom one had
good relations in the past and perhaps also in the
future. You can lose more by gaining too soon. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 12, 1:31 pm, Lanarcam <lanarc... at (no spam) yahoo.fr> wrote:
Quote: elipsett wrote:
On Aug 12, 2:59 pm, Edward Hennessey <halozzyzxh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
She,
unless English law somersaults from expectation, has no general
ethical or legal constraint preventing her from truthfully announcing
the transgressions of a debtor which she may publicly pursue in court.
This may be true in many English-speaking nations, but it is worth
noting that in Japan you can be successfully sued for libel even if
your statements are found to be true.
I would be very careful about how any such information disclosure is
worded, and strongly suggest only stating the indisuptible facts...
Let other people draw their own conclusions, and avoid saying anything
you can't demonstrate in court.
FWIW and YMMV
I was also quite surprised to discover recently that,
in France also, you can be sued for libel (diffamation)
irrespective of the veracity of what was told.
Another thought about the case, it would perhaps be
wise not to antagonize someone with whom one had
good relations in the past and perhaps also in the
future. You can lose more by gaining too soon.
L:
You have, amigo, completely sabotaged the velleity I had about trading
my lodge for a windswept lighthouse in the South of France. Yet your
prospects live; the junkyard in Bakersfield awaits you with an Eden of
misunderstood machines.
It would have been nice if the OP had kept us in touch with more
contextual particulars to guide the service of our responses. The loss
therefrom, unfortunately, might just be hers. If there is a wider
preventative lesson to be observed, keeping in touch with others
working for an agency would make for a good early-warning system.
Having
a calendar set up for promptly dealing with people falling into
arrears would too be wise as the
situation painted shows.
Anyone wanting to sup on the subject of lenders and debtors would
gratify
a portion of an hour reading Lamb's essay on "The Two Races of Men"
which can
be freely found in downloadable ebook form.
Oh, TV, those haunting mentions of your storied Aunt have worked up an
ohrworm
grindingly transecting the tender space between my ears to the
nattering chant of "Hang
on Lupe" ad infinitum. Tell me this is not something Transylvanian in
you working with
a she wolf gaslighting me?
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter Wells... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 12 août, 22:31, Lanarcam <lanarc... at (no spam) yahoo.fr> wrote:
Quote: FWIW and YMMV
I was also quite surprised to discover recently that,
in France also, you can be sued for libel (diffamation)
irrespective of the veracity of what was told.
Not exactly; you can be prosecuted for "diffamation" with a civil case
attached; the standards of proof required are not the same. In the
criminal proceedings, while the truth is not an excuse if presented in
a misleading way, good faith is a complete defence. In the civil case,
the rules are closer to those of the common law, but damage needs to
be proved. In a vast majority of cases, the damages are nominal. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Tony Vella... |
| Posted: Wed Aug 13, 2008 8:54 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Edward Hennessey" <halozzyzxhalo at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d0fc51f9-61f9-47b9-85bf-e29596ea475d at (no spam) u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
<<longish sniperoo>>
Oh, TV, those haunting mentions of your storied Aunt have worked up an
ohrworm
grindingly transecting the tender space between my ears to the
nattering chant of "Hang
on Lupe" ad infinitum. Tell me this is not something Transylvanian in
you working with
a she wolf gaslighting me?
I hasten to assure you, Edward, that my Aunt Lupe, of sainly aspect and
demonic appetites, has nothing of the Transylvanian about her. Just an
ordinary, run-of-the-mill senior citizen who lives on Cap'n Morgan Rum and
Gummy-Worms. (Yak! I would sooner kiss a lawyer than drink Rum.) Ma tante
Fleurette, on the other hand ...............
--
Tony Vella
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
http://www.amedialuz.ca/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 13, 11:04 pm, Peter Wells <pwells... at (no spam) wanadoo.fr> wrote:
Quote: On 12 août, 22:31, Lanarcam <lanarc... at (no spam) yahoo.fr> wrote:> > FWIW and YMMV
I was also quite surprised to discover recently that,
in France also, you can be sued for libel (diffamation)
irrespective of the veracity of what was told.
Not exactly; you can be prosecuted for "diffamation" with a civil case
attached; the standards of proof required are not the same. In the
criminal proceedings, while the truth is not an excuse if presented in
a misleading way, good faith is a complete defence. In the civil case,
the rules are closer to those of the common law, but damage needs to
be proved. In a vast majority of cases, the damages are nominal.
PW:
If in such a French common law decision, the plaintiff pays his own
legal
fees, the resultant expenditure would hardly give incentive to
emulators.
Here, in cases of libel or slander, the successful plaintiff must
somehow
convince the court that they have suffered measurable damages from
calumny that has met a test of reckless disregard for the truth: not
an easy thing to do.
The mention of a nominal award reminds me of the famous "monkey
trial",
which is relevantly addressed in an excerpt from the web below.
"(July 10 – 21, 1925) Widely publicized trial (called the "Monkey
Trial") in Dayton, Tenn. John T. Scopes (1900 – 70), a high-school
teacher, was charged with teaching Charles Darwin's theory of
evolution, which violated a state law prohibiting the teaching of any
doctrine that denied the divine creation of humans. The trial was
broadcast live on radio and attracted worldwide interest. The
prosecutor was William Jennings Bryan; the defense attorney was
Clarence Darrow. The judge limited arguments to the basic charge to
avoid a test of the law's constitutionality and a discussion of
Darwin's theory. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100; he was later
acquitted on the technicality that he had been fined excessively. The
law was repealed in 1967."
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Edward Hennessey... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 12:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 13, 6:54 pm, "Tony Vella" <tony.ve... at (no spam) rogers.com> wrote:
Quote: "Edward Hennessey" <halozzyzxh... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d0fc51f9-61f9-47b9-85bf-e29596ea475d at (no spam) u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
longish sniperoo
Oh, TV, those haunting mentions of your storied Aunt have worked up an
ohrworm
grindingly transecting the tender space between my ears to the
nattering chant of "Hang
on Lupe" ad infinitum. Tell me this is not something Transylvanian in
you working with
a she wolf gaslighting me?
I hasten to assure you, Edward, that my Aunt Lupe, of sainly aspect and
demonic appetites, has nothing of the Transylvanian about her. Just an
ordinary, run-of-the-mill senior citizen who lives on Cap'n Morgan Rum and
Gummy-Worms. (Yak! I would sooner kiss a lawyer than drink Rum.) Ma tante
Fleurette, on the other hand ...............
--
Tony Vella
Ottawa, Ontario, Canadahttp://www.amedialuz.ca/
TV:
I am glad we share assurance that Lupe is sane, though you need not
convince me of her
saintliness given imagery of her in inmost communion with holy spirits
whilst casting out stray demons in the tavernacle (not sic). Would
that I had her aflank the other torrid day when espying a twilled
column of thin smoke steaming from a shallow ravine. Arriving on a
closer determination, that apparition unkindly resolved into a pillar
of convecting blur flies. Oh, that Capitan Lupe was there affording
a guiding hermeneutic hand...funny how suddenly a
preference for vultures comes. Of Aunt Fleurette, time and providence
will tell. If she does
palms I'll have a date for her.
To get back on topic--and I assure you this would be--it would be
grand if you can elaborate
a comparative view of Copernic for the assembly. Having inquired into
it, my primary recollection was of knocks preferring the older version
over the new issue.
But I'm still on the fence about your Transyvanianess. Saw a billboard
at home
a recent while ago advertising an "artificial blood beverage" to the
Gothic type.
No proof number was given.
Regards,
Edward Hennessey |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 20, 2008 1:40 pm
|
|