Reply to: Liability

[Wanderer]

Always remember the unfortunate surveyor who got sued despite the fact he was an employee of an estate agent who'd gone bust 3 or 4 years earlier.

That was a fairly unusual case though. I've seen lots of instances where companies have gone bust and there isn't a damned thing people could do to get shoddy work remedied. (Not suggesting that the OP was shoddy, just saying that once a company is closed down, you don't have much chance.)

[SueEllen]

Is PI retrospective? I assumed it wasn't.

If the poster is still in the contract he can take it out.

Otherwise he has to read the small print to check poss retrospective claim cover as I know a few insurers cover you for them.

[louie]

Worst comes to the worst I have a false moustache and hat.

[jmo21]

If you have PI then the client has to fight with your company's insurers for the money. If you don't the fight is with you so depending on the lawyers they hire they can make your life hell.

Just go and buy some insurance for £100 and don't worry about it.

Is PI retrospective? I assumed it wasn't.

[SueEllen]

If you have PI then the client has to fight with your company's insurers for the money. If you don't the fight is with you so depending on the lawyers they hire they can make your life hell.

Just go and buy some insurance for £100 and don't worry about it.

[d000hg]

Lesson for the future then. If you work in an area where you can be blamed as the sole arbiter of what is produced, you need insurance for when it goes wrong. As I said somewhere else recently, "Fingers crossed" is not a good business model.

Insurance, or some clause in your contract waiving liability - is that a fair alternative?

[tractor]

...

It's really just a worry of mine, I doubt it will not do what it's suppose to and I doubt if it doesn't they will hold me solely responsible. But I wanted to make sure.

You cannot predict the future. Put it to bed and move on. The lesson to be learned is get future contracts reviewed and make sure that you can live with the obligations before you sign them then cover your glutæus maximus with PI insurance.

[louie]

Well 'intended' is very nebulous and would be difficult to prove negligence in that respect whilst 'specified' is entirely the opposite. If there was no specification, intention can be very difficult to prove regardless of insurance or the lack of. However, if they have deep pockets or are better at brinkmanship than you..........

Whatever you do, don't agree to 'put it right' either for free or without a watertight spec. I'd be of the mind to just walk away regardless, if they are already showing displeasure, the likelihood is that even if you agree to extend and do 'put it right', payment may well not be forthcoming.

It's really just a worry of mine, I doubt it will not do what it's suppose to and I doubt if it doesn't they will hold me solely responsible. But I wanted to make sure.

[tractor]

....

No it will probably work, but based on extreme lack of a spec especially around what was to be audited (so I just audited every thing), there bound to be something missing from the system as a whole therefore not being audited.

Well 'intended' is very nebulous and would be difficult to prove negligence in that respect whilst 'specified' is entirely the opposite. If there was no specification, intention can be very difficult to prove regardless of insurance or the lack of. However, if they have deep pockets or are better at brinkmanship than you..........

Whatever you do, don't agree to 'put it right' either for free or without a watertight spec. I'd be of the mind to just walk away regardless, if they are already showing displeasure, the likelihood is that even if you agree to extend and do 'put it right', payment may well not be forthcoming.

[louie]

Who actually told you? Was it the client or was it some barrack room lawyer at the pub? If it was the client, it makes a difference whether it was one of those hypothetical type conversations or not.

Have they actually complained to you that the system is not working as they intended?

No it will probably work, but based on extreme lack of a spec especially around what was to be audited (so I just audited every thing), there bound to be something missing from the system as a whole therefore not being audited.

[jmo21]

I worked on a system that had almost no requirements and no test team, and an insane deadline due a law coming into existence. However now the system is live I am told that the users can sue my client if the system doesn't audit certain data. I got the impression they were implying I would be held responsible? Is that possible. I did my best based on the fragments of information i had.

So long as you can show you were not given the "must audit certain data" requirement, I don't see how they can sue you/your Ltd.

[Lewis]

I don't have the insurance, but given I wasn't given the correct information and support (testers) etc I don't see how they could ever hold be fully responsible.

It costs around £100-ish you need to have it. Try QDOS they are cheap and you may even find a policy bought now would protect you against previous work done - you'd need to check on that.

[tractor]

....

Thinking about it I think the issue really boils down to the fact the end client wants someone to fix the problem for free and the old clientco want Louie to do it.

The threats are there because they want it done for free so just calmly call them back and point out it that while you would be happy to help its a change request that you will happily quote and charge for. You can also do it quickly if you can work from home (which would allow you to do it in your own time or offload it to elance and pocket the difference).

Provided of course, that the changes are fully documented this time and that the OP gets PI Insurance before taking on any more work for them.

[tractor]

...

I worked on a system that had almost no requirements and no test team, and an insane deadline due a law coming into existence. However now the system is live I am told that the users can sue my client if the system doesn't audit certain data. I got the impression they were implying I would be held responsible? Is that possible. I did my best based on the fragments of information i had.

Who actually told you? Was it the client or was it some barrack room lawyer at the pub? If it was the client, it makes a difference whether it was one of those hypothetical type conversations or not.

Have they actually complained to you that the system is not working as they intended?

[louie]

Actually I think that makes it more likely rather than less likely. The fact that you did it all by yourself without support means that they can point out the obvious target (the lone developer) and helps them clearly deflect the blame from them to you.

Also the lack of analysis doesn't help your argument unless you can accurately show that the initial information you got was confirmed as correct by the third party. If you were working agilely with continuing changing requirements they could easily used your defence against you.

The killer thing here is that Lawyers will destroy you with both time and money so I view indemnity insurance as both something my clients like and something that when things go wrong allows me to offload the problem to a specialist asap.

Assuming all your contract paperwork is in your company name your best option is probably to close you current company down asap and start your next contract as a new company. Oh and find some indemnity insurance for your next contract its very cheap if you end up needing it.

By that logic, I could hire someone give them one page requirements to build a search engine equivalent to Google and if has to be done in 3 weeks or I will sue. i.e. it's bulltulip.