[Chugalug] OT: NET15 Terms

Stephen Haywood stephen at averagesecurityguy.info
Fri Dec 21 17:54:14 UTC 2012


Where ever the contract says you draw the line. If the contract says NET15,
hold the client to it. If NET30 works better for you and the client, modify
the contract. Always, use the contract as the final answer, that is why you
have it.

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Eric Wolf <ebwolf at gmail.com> wrote:

> So one should expect to receive payment for invoice with NET15 terms
> received by the client on 12/3 by 12/18... Which was my understanding... It
> looks like I won't receive payment for the invoice until 12/31. I hate to
> be a dick with a client who is actually paying... but where do you draw the
> line?
>
> -=--=---=----=----=---=--=-=--=---=----=---=--=-=-
> Eric B. Wolf                           720-334-7734
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Dave Brockman <dave at brockmans.com>wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/21/2012 11:54 AM, Aaron Welch wrote:
>> > It is invoiced, but payment is due within 15 days.  I assess
>> > penalties if it is late.
>>
>> Most accounting software puts a date on an invoice (once you go
>> through the process(es) to "release" the invoice).  Most accounting
>> software starts a count-down from that point, and assesses penalties
>> based on the invoice date and customer terms.  I process an invoice on
>> the first to a NET15 customer, penalties are assessed on the 17th if
>> not received.  Bureaucracy has a way of horribly complicating the most
>> simple of concepts.  That speak of payment cycles, etc you mentioned
>> sounds exactly like that, bureaucratic BS to magically extend NET15
>> into NET45 or some other such BS....
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> dtb
>>
>>
>> - --
>> "Some things in life can never be fully appreciated nor
>> understood unless experienced firsthand. Some things in
>> networking can never be fully understood by someone who neither
>> builds commercial networking equipment nor runs an operational
>> network."  RFC 1925
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlDUmWgACgkQABP1RO+tr2RyBACgnXyoQ5pbjrIClbuwmDtNy6TY
>> uOoAnjmNGaEvtd6TWLayertW+c1cbENP
>> =yDwU
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
>> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> http://chugalug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chugalug
>
>


-- 
Stephen Haywood
Information Security Consultant
CISSP, GPEN, OSCP
T: @averagesecguy
W: averagesecurityguy.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://chugalug.org/pipermail/chugalug/attachments/20121221/25cc9c43/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Chugalug mailing list