"WHEREAS, the Company desires to increase the search-engine position ranking of its website relative to certain keywords relating to its products and services."
NOTE: The above refers to the SEO internal data included to enhance the website's online positioning.
According to the replacement Project Manager (as stated in September 2008), the site was NOT Search Engine Optimized. To do so at that stage would be costly!
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions set forth herein,
the parties agree as follows:
'Company 'X' will perform the following activities:
(3 Pages of itemized, web-related production implemented lists are stated)
............................
Page 4 indicates
- Graphic design
- Design cut-up
- Apply design to templates
- Zip code/postal code maintenance - 1 year - quarterly updates of postal code database (4 hours per quarter)
- Testing
- Project Management
Total
Software costs
- vBulletin (Owned License) 1 seat)
- Zip code database (http://www.zipcodeworld.com/Zipcodepremium.htm)
- Postal code database (ditto)
NOTE: Unbeknown to Newbe Client, missing from the Software list are several crucial items, such as:
- The e-Commerce supplier; an SSL License holder (inclusion of a web 'Safety' license)
(NO contract indication of any client duties)
Company 'X' has committed to the following costs for the activities described herein.
Total: $40,469.90 + GST
lll. Payment Schedule
This payment schedule is as follows. The dates are identified as goal dates based on the project timeline of 8 weeks.
(Deposit - April 16, 2008 @ $10,500 ; Some 5 Milestone Payments @ $5,500 and a
No 7 Completion - July 11, 2008 @ Payment of $4,493.43 )
NOTE: - With the timeline crucial to the choice of this Developer, please Note the indication of the project: "Timeline of 8 weeks." (The actual time line between April 16, 2008 and July 11, 2008 is actually 12 weeks. The earlier 'Proposal' as presented by Company 'X's' CEO indicated: "Aiming for 6 weeks." To this Respondent/Plaintiff/ Client pretentious PR, since the contract was never honored. lV. Optional Services etc...@$60.00 PH
V. Ownership (....to client)
Vl. Guarantee: Company 'X' guarantees etc... + 90 free business days fixing any bugs created by our team or items not built to project specification at no cost once the project is in production. ... etc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties acknowledge that each has fully read and understood this Agreement, and, intending to be legally bound thereby, executed this Agreement on the the date set forth above.
The Company (signature of E. Jan Steen + one investor)
Web Developer COMPANY 'X' (signature of Web-developer CEO)
DATED: April 14, 2008
__________________________________________________________________________
NOTE: With an acknowledged 'High-Tech Green' (Newbe) Client, at the outset Company 'X' indicated the listed Items to be "highly detailed since you are dealing with Investors..."
By October 31, 2008, Company 'X's ' CEO agreed the list was "NOT DETAILED ENOUGH!"
- The original Project Manager, considered completely "capable"at the outset, on his return from holidays, on September 2, 2008, was "removed" from the project.
CEO: "Hey Jan, it is clear to me that (Y)'s project management skills are not where they should be at. We have removed him from the project...Soon we will see the light..."
SUMMATION:
There was NEVER any light to be seen! On October 29, 2008, Respondent had site transfered to a server located in Victoria. Against professional advice, Site was reluctantly taken live on Oct.30. 2008
- Other than aware of the obvious - having to pay upon each Milestone completion - the Contract stated NOTHING about ANY additional duties for the Client. YET, Defense continues to use tactics whereby the Respondent is held to blame for the website's failures. Tactics, implemented by continued Motions, demanding the Respondent answer questions having ZERO relation to the pleadings; ZERO relevance to the non-compliance of the Contract.
Below are the most recent questions (indicated by Master Roger, as relevant "in the circumstances"), to be answered by the Respondent. Failing to do so would cause dire consequences for the Plaintiff.
WHAT the "circumstances" the Master refers to are, this Respondent knows NOT!
I ask the reader to identify 'ONE" Question that could POSSIBLY be RELEVANT to the issues at hand, i.e. - the Contract. The pleadings strictly deal with the Defendant's contractual NON-COMPLIANCE. Nothing beyond that!
PLEASE SEE THE MASTER'S LAST ORDER (below)
_____________________________________________________
COURT FILE NO.:10-49776
DATE HEARD: May 8, 2013
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Evert Steen and Company 'X'
BEFORE: MASTER P. E. ROGER
COUNSEL: "ABC" , for the plaintiff
email: ....@.....
Ph: X,Y,Z
Jill Alexander, for the defendant
email: JALEXANDER@BLG.COM
Ph: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (613) 230-8842
E N D O R S E M E N T (at case conference)
By way of background, the following was ordered on February 27, 2013:
a. The outstanding undertakings are to be answered by March 8th, 2013.
b. The outstanding costs award is to be paid immediately.
c. If the plaintiff fails to comply, the defendants may seek to stay or dismiss the action.
d. Counsel for the plaintiff will review compliance with the order of Master Roger requiring
material to be removed from the blog and will advise the defendants what steps the plaintiff
has taken or will take to ensure he is in compliance.
e. On consent, Rohan Bansie is appointed as mediator. Mediation is to be completed by
June 15th, 2013.
f. The status notice issued on January 22nd, 2013 is set aside. The time under Rule 48.14 is
extended to September 30th, 2013.
g. This order is effective without further formality.
The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered. (Bolded by Respondent)*
The following is ordered:
1. The Defendant shall provide a list of outstanding undertakings by May 10, 2013.
2. The Plaintiff shall answer all outstanding undertakings by June 15, 2013.
3. If the Plaintiff fails to provide any additional answer following receiving the list of
outstanding undertakings to be provided by May 10, 2013, then the Plaintiff’s action shall
be dismissed with costs to the Defendant upon the Defendant filing with the court an
affidavit that no additional answers were provided. This shall be brought as a basket
motion in writing with notice to the Plaintiff. (Bolded by Respondent)
4. Otherwise, if partial answers are provided a motion may return to strike or to dismiss the
Plaintiff’s action and this motion is hereby scheduled before a master for 4 hours starting
at 10 am on September 5, 2013, on the following schedule:
a. The Moving Party to serve its motion materials, excluding factum, by July 19,
2013.
b. The Responding Party to serve his materials, excluding factum, by August 9,
2013.
c. Any required cross-examination to be conducted by August 16, 2013.
d. A factum is to be delivered by all.
5. If ever the motion of September 5, 2013, is to be adjourned, settled or should it not
proceed for any reason, the Defendant is to advise the court asap in order for the date to
be freed up. The motion date of September 5 may be adjourned sine die or to a new date
on the written request of the Defendant with notice to the Plaintiff as soon as possible
after June 15, 2013.
6. If the parties need a further case conference to resolve any issue before the motion they
may schedule an urgent case conference.
7. Any of the above timelines may be changed on consent of all parties and the motion date
of September 5 may be vacated on written request of the Defendant.
___________________________________
Master Pierre E. Roger
Date: May 8, 2013
____________________________________________________________________________*NOTE - "The Defendant says that undertakings still remain unanswered."
- The Respondent indicates his conscience can no longer allow him to procrastinate.
- The Respondent states the Case is overdue for Trial.
- The Respondent awaits Defense's delivery of a "Basket Motion."
- The Respondent may come to realize he and the Case may become a 'Basket Case.'
___________________________________________________________________________
Jan Steen Discovery and follow up questions:
(* Respondent indicates a 'G' when, in his opinion he has previously answered the question.)
Q3(ii)
Did any technical third parties review your website? Did their answers/comments assist you in answering these questions?
Full name, address, phone number, email, company, job title.
(Respondent has long ago supplied Defense with all requested here) *G.
Q4(ii)(c)
Q4(iii)(f)
Did you have any employees for this particular business at any point in time?
Did you consult with any other persons who specialize in web design?
Did you have any investors?
Are there any other people who have information about this claim?
Salaried employees; experts employed, retained or consulted; witnesses; investors; counsels/lawyers; others.
(All Q's previously answered) *G.
Q5(iv)(d)
If the above-mentioned people have relevant information about this claim, what information might they have?
*Given previously
Q9(i)(c) & (d)
Did anyone else have conversations with the defendant or his employees that you know of? Were you the only person the defendant reported to?
What did these conversations pertain to? If other people had conversations with the defendant/his employees, can you provide a detailed summary of these person’s opinions or analysis?
*G
Q10(i)(a) & (b)
Do you have the time and date of these conversations? Do you know what these conversations were generally about? Were these conversations written or oral? If any of these conversations were written, who is in possession of these conversations?
??
Q12(i)(a)
Did you do any preparation for this business before you decided to hire the defendants to design your website? Did you do any research on starting a business? What arrangements did you make for this website?
*G
Q12(ii)(g)
Did you do any research for suppliers?
* Once indicated by email on May 19, 2008, it was in the Respondent's best interest to seek and order the Contractual 'Prerequisites' (first indication with email), the Respondent acted with due diligence to obtain same. Multiple emails can prove this.
Q17(i)
Did you consider any other web developers before deciding to hire the defendant company? If so, what are the names of these companies?
*G
Q17(ii)
Why did you choose to hire the defendant company?
*G
Q25(i)
Have you spent any money on marketing your business?
*G
Q31(i)
How is the website unusable?
*G
Q31(ii)
Did any customers/users provide any feedback about the user-friendliness/ insufficiency of the website? If so, do you have access to these comments?
*G
Q35
Can you describe in any further detail of the ample proof you are referring to?
The early response was far from encouraging. Visitors trying to use the site did not receive verification e-mails. The site proved not to be user friendly, was awkward, slow and redundant, and, as we had already been advised, unsafe. There were clearly more problems than just fixing glitches and items not built to specifications. A newspaper ad, sent to some 14,000 homes, resulted in a “most hits in one day” of 1,981 visitors - but not one visitor joined the site. This was ample proof the site was neither functioning properly, nor user friendly;
*G
Q38(iii)
Were you aware you were responsible to get a vBulletin licence?
Did you order a vBulletin licence? Is so, what was the date that you ordered it? If not, why did you not order a licence?
*G SEE CONTRACT
Q40(iii)
Provide code audit
NA
Q40(iv)
How was the website “badly constructed from the very outset”?
(Respondent has answered this question at length, supplying Defense with some 5 (paid for) professional web-developer's extensive reviews.)
Q44(i)(d)
Why did the website not stand a chance surviving on the Internet?
*G
Q48(v)
Do you know the process by which security fixes could be implemented to the website? Do you know the costs of these security fixes?
Q48(vi)
Do you know the process by which calendar events could be implemented to the website? Do you know the cost of this?
Q77(i)
After the statement of work was signed, did you make any changes, alterations, variations, modifications or indecisions to the requirements of the statement of work?
*G
Q85(ii)(b)
How did you intend to get the money from users of your website? (PayPal, Moneris etc) Were you aware it was your responsibility to set this up?
Did the defendants ever provide reasons for the delays?
*G NOT IN CONTRACT
Q86(i)(a)
Did you market your blog? If so, what were your intentions with marketing the blog?
*G. ONE CONTACT IN USA
NOTE: This refers to Defense's Counterclaim of Defamation. Much time and effort was directed in Defense Motions and Case Conferences tackling this subject. WHERE WERE THE PLEADINGS OF THE CLAIM?
Undertakings:
Q1
Resume: highest level of education; recent work experiences in CV format.
*G. Gave extended resume, starting at birth!
Q15
Did you have a business plan in 2008? If so, is the business plan you have provided to us that same business plan? If not, when was this business plan you provided to us drafted?
*G (Respondent adds: A Business Plan can only sensibly be implemented if contracted obligations of timeline and production values are met.
Q25
Did you make any efforts to market your business?
(Respondent: One can not drive a car with its engine on the roof, and steering wheel in the trunk.)
Q26
Did you spend any more money on website development after paying the $45,000 to COMPANY 'X'? If so, do you have any receipts to show an incurred expense?
*G.
Q44
Audit to be provided to defendant counsel.
NA
----------------------------------------------
NOTE: This too will pass....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Post a Comment