Allegation summary: The employer (registryman of Leicester, United Kingdom) alleged that the worker (PixignStudio of Karachi, Pakistan) did not upload any deliverables to the vWorker site before the project deadline expired. Pixignstudio alleged that registryman didn’t give complete information about the project which is why it wasn’t completed by the deadline.
Arbitration summary: The employer, registryman, initiated arbitration to cancel the project. registryman alleged that PixignStudio, the worker, did not upload any deliverables to the vWorker site before the project deadline expired. PixignStudio asked to try self-mediation and alleged that all deliverables were uploaded before the deadline. However PixignStudio also admitted that the project was incomplete. PixignStudio asked to avoid a negative rating.
registryman disputed PixignStudio’s allegation that all deliverables were uploaded. The arbitrator reviewed the project history and discovered that PixignStudio had indeed asked some questions that registryman did not answer.
If the questions were relevant to the project, but never answered, then registryman owed PixignStudio the answers. As a result, Pixignstudio would not be at fault for the missed deadline. However, if the questions were not relevant to the project, then PixignStudio was simply stalling for time. As a result, PixignStudio would be at fault for the missed deadline.
The arbitrator asked registryman if the information that PixignStudio asked for was information that PixignStudio should have known. registryman replied and alleged that PixignStudio asked questions that PixignStudio should have known the answers to.
PixignStudio continued to allege that the lack of information resulted in the missed deadline. PixignStudio stated that it didn’t want money but wanted to avoid a bad rating.
The arbitrator asked registryman and PixignStudio to confirm whether or not they wanted to try self-mediation and settle the project on their own or if they wanted to continue with a formal arbitration.
registryman and PixignStudio tried to negotiate over the terms. However they could not agree on the terms and started to bicker back and forth. The arbitrator warned both parties not to do that in the future. The arbitrator sent the arbitration to a technical arbitrator for review to determine if the unanswered questions were relevant to the project.
PixignStudio claimed that registryman withheld information on three particular items which caused the deadline to be missed. Pixignstudio listed the items:
1.the buyer never told me the site is a wp or zend based site
2. the server contain lot of sites, but buyer never tell me which one he wants to move
3. he dont even tell me about the database and told me to check every one one by one starting with db_
The technical arbitrator reviewed the project and provided feedback on each item:
1. This is something you should have checked placing the bid. If you place a bid without ensuring that you do understand the scope of the project then you are the one putting yourself in a risky situation.
2. The employer had explicitly stated http://discountvouchers.org/ via the tiny link given. This information was also given on Posting # 31,939,638 on Thursday Oct 14, 2010 9:40:54 AM
3. You should have been able to pull this information from the source code. Most of the employers are non-technical and will not have this information.
The technical arbitrator ruled that PixignStudio did not demonstrate competence during the project. The arbitration was ruled in favor of registryman. PixignStudio agreed with the ruling and stated that it learned a lesson. registryman confirmed that all the deliverables were deleted.
Full arbitration record
