đ
Customer : "Please sign and return back this 'Supplier Code of Conduct that we need you to sign."
Me : "We already have a contract. You signed up. You agreed. Your new code of conduct is six pages. We'd need our lawyer to read it, and highlight any new liabilities brought on by our acceptance of these six pages of new terms you want to impose. Can you approve up to an initial ÂŁ500 to allow us to do this?"
Customer : "No."
(continues)
đCustomer: "Please can you send us your latest code of conduct?"
Me: "We don't have any documents explicitly labelled as that, and that is rather a generalised title anyway. Please see our legal page, which has at least a dozen documents on it, both general and specific."
đNote that this legal page is EASY to find on our web site. So one assumes the customer did not think to check it before sending out the terms.
I do really wonder how many companies simply sign their lives away to these agreements, without really properly getting them looked at? You know full well that although they are said to be informal, if a company was ever to break one in a way that mattered, they'd be instantly enforced.
So, yeah, push back. Is my main bullet point.
Neil Brown@bloor@bloor.tw
Coming next:
- where is your modern slavery statement
- have you publish an anti-bribery policy
Steve Hill đ´ó §ó ˘ó ˇó Źó łó ż
đŞđş
@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk @bloor@bloor.tw "We do not participate in modern slavery. We do the good old fashioned sort instead"?
Steve Hill đ´ó §ó ˘ó ˇó Źó łó żđŞđş@neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk @bloor@bloor.tw Must admit that I have never understood why companies are expected to have a position on "modern slavery" instead of just "slavery"...
Tony Hoyle@steve@mastodon.nexusuk.org @neil@mastodon.neilzone.co.uk @bloor@bloor.tw Or a position on slavery at all.. It is unlawful. Companies aren't required to have a position on drug dealing or mass murder..