Razorfish Sued For "Shoddy Web Site"

GusherJizmac writes "I know it's not totally on subject, but Razorfish is currently being sued over the website they did for IAM. IAM claims that "Razorfish breached the Agreement with IAM.com by delivering wholly inadequate deliverables and services." Could this set a precendent for the quality required for custom built software?" I dunno, maybe it's because of the time I spent working at a web design place, but this just seems funny to me. Update by RM 5:32 p.m. EST: link and typo corrected

Comments

Interesting or Idiotic

[Lord Kano]

I don't know the particulars of this case, I used to do work as a graphic artist. I remember customers demanding outrageous concessions as a condition of giving us the work. From people who walk in with a shoebox full of slides that needed scanning and expected to pick them back up in two hours to people who wanted custom 10 minute 3D animation sequences done(from concpetualization to final rendering) over a weekend.

If Razorfish met the conditions of the contract, they should be able to counter sue. People need to know that content designers will give you WHAT YOU ASK FOR and not necessarily what you want.

LK

Always read and understand the contract.

[KFury]

IAM's suit hinges on their position that five days to accept or regect deliverables, as specified in their agreement with Razorfish is 'unconscionable'. They go on to say that Razorfish missed nearly every deliverable deadline.

I'll admit I know nothing about the internal workings of this particular engagement, but I do know four things:

• You shouldn't sign an agreement with another company if you find unconscionable clauses in it.
  
• Five days is plenty of time to find problems with a home page.
  
• More often than not, delivery schedules slip because of client changes, or because they need an extraordinary amount of time to accept or regect comps and templates.
  
• Clients often have a problem understanding that production work is held up intul a design approval comes through.
  

I just wonder who they'll be able to get for their next site redesign when they sue their previous agency for standard practices.

PS: An 'AOL 4.0 browser' is actually one of over 9 different browsers depending on platform, OS, and AOL whim.

Kevin Fox

Clues from the source

[Jason W]

Whoever designed IAM.com must be an ultra l33t hax0r.

function checkCookie () {
var chek;
writeCookie ('mstrChck', 'hasyobrowsagotskillz');
chek = readCookie ('mstrChck');

if (chek != 'hasyobrowsagotskillz') return false;
else return true;
}

Looks like someone would rather have been hacking.

--

Poor IAS

[John Jorsett]

How'd you like to be the webmaster at IAS.com? Here you're suddenly hammered by a horde of slashdotters showing up, and you're going "What the f...?" Then you go over to SlashDot and find out that your site has been incorrectly linked in a story about IAM.com, but that everyone's saying, "yeah, that site really is a piece of feces. They oughta sue." Gotta ruin your day.