“The components used to build the products are largely unique to the products, resulting in long lead times for ordering such component parts from suppliers,” and Twitter must give “written approval for Wiwynn to purchase the necessary components to manufacture the customer products…and expressly assumed liabilities for the procurement costs.”
So basically they were bespoke servers that are great for Twitter, custom designed, and definitely aren’t easy to just resell elsewhere, so because Twitter isn’t paying, the IT company is eating the loss right now
It sounds like in this transaction they are purely a hardware provider, they shipped the bespoke hardware to Twitter based on twitters order, musk took over, and is now refusing to pay them because he doesn’t want whatever the hardware is after having gutted Twitter, and they haven’t been paid
If it was done in knowingly and in bad faith, no I would not. With this particular case, all I know is what’s in that article which doesn’t describe the situation in detail. The court case would provide the full picture.
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.
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.
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.
Never give these rich assholes credit unless there is an airtight contract for payment.
There is no such thing as an airtight contract when dealing with Musk. He simply ignores it until you sue.
Same thing as Trump.
Doesn’t matter how perfect your contract is, as long as they can afford to fight the lawsuit longer than you you’re gonna lose.
You’d think people would learn to not contract with these assholes at all.
You just have to work in legal costs to anything you do. Call it an asshole tax
Or you just…stop providing the service?
So basically they were bespoke servers that are great for Twitter, custom designed, and definitely aren’t easy to just resell elsewhere, so because Twitter isn’t paying, the IT company is eating the loss right now
By keeping them on, they’re continuing to incurr expenses, as well as assuring any future “customers” that they can feel free to walk all over them.
It sounds like in this transaction they are purely a hardware provider, they shipped the bespoke hardware to Twitter based on twitters order, musk took over, and is now refusing to pay them because he doesn’t want whatever the hardware is after having gutted Twitter, and they haven’t been paid
Oh well that makes more sense.
Yep! It’s more nuanced than the title leads on. But “Elon bad” is the train with momentum around here.
I wouldn’t describe taking over a company and then not fulfilling obligations incurred prior to the purchase as good behavior. Would you?
If it was done in knowingly and in bad faith, no I would not. With this particular case, all I know is what’s in that article which doesn’t describe the situation in detail. The court case would provide the full picture.
Payment up front, in non negotiable bearer bonds.
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.
That might be true, but I think the point is that maybe it shouldn’t be rare (especially when dealing with these guys).
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.
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.
Did you even read the article…?
Because if you had, you would know that the credit terms were established prior to Musk’s takeover.