Prince Harry spent £10,000s on a wordpress theme
- Thread starter Voo
- Start date
When you have never wanted for anything then money has no meaning or value.
I mean they're going to be giving speeches at events for big banks etc and getting paid millions.
They think that's normal.
And really who cares what they have to say - they know nothing.
- Apr 25, 2011
- 19,848
- 28,296
Pretty crazy but at the same time this is the same with anything in life - price is dictated to some extent by the type of clients you target - some people sell (and buy) websites for £500. Some people sell them for £100k+.
T-shirts are the same - you can buy a T-shirt for £5, or you can buy one for £500. Both extremes have a market.
so you have to decide who your target audience is and cater to them, target them, then you can charge accordingly.
T-shirts are the same - you can buy a T-shirt for £5, or you can buy one for £500. Both extremes have a market.
so you have to decide who your target audience is and cater to them, target them, then you can charge accordingly.
Kamillus
Power Member
- Aug 11, 2016
- 597
- 234
100% true
you can have best skills but without luck / strategy - you won't do anything on your level
and ofcourse you can have no skills... but with good connections you will be boss
RebeccaThomas
Junior Member
- Jun 18, 2019
- 147
- 142
I thought this was for real until your sourced the daily mail
I can feel the /s in this post.
D
Deleted member 1313244
Guest
I should have said, my post about him was as someone that quite likes Harry, despite not being a royalist.
- Mar 22, 2013
- 6,286
- 10,983
Easy money for the agency or person who sold this. Imagine you would make a website for Warren Buffett. Would you quote him $500 or $50,000? For him it absolutely makes no difference, but for you it does. Maybe he would even feel much more comfortable to pay 50k, because he would think its high quality. As for the Royales, someone quoted them this price and milked the most possible money out of it.
D
Deleted member 1313244
Guest
Is Harry good or bad? Who knows. Either way he sucks at branding.
Travalyst.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Harry-launch-eco-friendly-holiday-scheme.html
Travalyst.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Harry-launch-eco-friendly-holiday-scheme.html
Coastline17
Regular Member
- Oct 26, 2019
- 349
- 134
Meh, grounds for a lawsuit. Overcharging would be easy to prove.
- Mar 10, 2010
- 42,695
- 107,109
Offer and acceptance.
If there was an offer and the buyer accepted it would be a tough thing in a court of law to have the seller lose.
Good purchase, bad purchase... terms get laid out and both parties agree there is nothing to hold water in a lawsuit.
Coastline17
Regular Member
- Oct 26, 2019
- 349
- 134
My best modes of attack: (Excerpts shortened for brevity)
“The law sets out what you are entitled to expect from digital content that is supplied by a trader….If the digital content fails to meet your expectations because it is faulty then it does not 'conform to the contract'. The key rights are highlighted in bold in this section…
…You have the right to expect that the digital content is of satisfactory quality. This means that it meets a standard that a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking account of any description applied, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. The state and condition of the digital content, its fitness for purpose, safety, durability and freedom from minor defects are all important factors when considering its quality.
For example, If you pay to download an e-book but the pages of the book are not in their correct order, the e-book is not of satisfactory quality. If the quality of the colour on the front cover of the e-book is poor but the content is fine, the 'reasonable person' may accept that the e-book overall is of satisfactory quality. Public statements, such as those in advertising or on labelling, made by the trader, the producer or their representative about the digital content, must be accurate and can also be taken into account when deciding if it is of satisfactory quality.”
So in this instance, I would use an expert witness to take into account the quality of the website in comparison to similar websites for the same price. A forensic account/evaluator would look into the time detail and overhead costs that Article (the people who made the site) incurred during the process and testify whether it was reasonable. The expert testimony would be key here as it would place an overwhelming burden on Article to prove their work was worth $100,000 or a reasonable markup.
There are also statutory laws regarding marketing in relation to digital goods. I couldn’t find any information on the royals, but I assume they either put out a private contract and Article made their bid amongst competitors or Article reached out directly with a media package. I would need to have access to this content if I was going to try to run this angle in a Court. It seems weak, so I wouldn’t rely on it. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 give you rights to redress.
“…Right to a price reduction: If repair or replacement of the digital content is not possible or cannot be carried out within a reasonable time or without causing you significant inconvenience then you are entitled to a reduction in the price. This can be as much as a full refund if, for example, you have had no benefit from the digital content. A price reduction can be calculated by comparing the difference between the contract price and the value of the digital content actually received or used.”
Nail in the coffin here is the Queen not allowing them to use the title, thus making the site defunct regardless of work put in. This is emphasized by the short time span that the site was up before the Queen made the call. The royal couple would most likely be entitled to a partial refund if using this approach and the site would have to be taken down or transferred back to the owner.
Also, a trader is not allowed to exclude or restrict your legal rights in any way. If you inadvertently agree to a term in a contract that excludes or restricts your rights, you are not bound by it because it is considered an 'unfair term'.
This is just my 4:00 A.M. handling of this, not an expert in UK legislature. Ultimately, if they wanted to pursue it, I would say they would be entitled to some recourse, plus I’m not above saying that the Court would lean in favor of the royals just based on their status. Not to mention the out-of-court tactics that could be used. Crack open a tax audit on Article, generate negative publicity for Article, drown in discovery / legal fees ect.
Information can be found:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents
For a version in English lol:
https://www.hants.gov.uk/business/t...radvice/goodsandservices/digitalcontentsupply