In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 02/19/2007
at 12:40 PM, Tony Harminc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>My experience some years ago with a vendor well known to this list
>was that our A-P department took the view that a "net 30" contract
>meant they should pay 30 days after receipt of the invoice, and not a
>day earlier. The vendor took the view that they would send out the
>new licence key upon receipt of payment. Needless to say, this almost
>always meant that we had to request emergency keys to tide us
>over.
I've been in that situation, but I've never believed that any
resulting outage was the vendor's fault. It's true that companies like
SAS Institute sometimes make allowances for broken A-P departments,
but that does not alter the fact that A-P is broken.
>I think a decoupling of the keys issue and the payments is called
>for, and indeed in the real world this happens much of the time.
Or they should make the due date 45 days prior to expiration, or they
should charge more but provide and early payment discount. But IMHO
the real solution is to get upper management involved in holding A-P's
feet to the fire.
The flip side is that when the customer tells the vendor to include
xyz on the invoice, it is the vendor's responsibility to do so. If A-P
doesn't pay an invoice because the vendor couldn't be bothered to
include necessary cross-reference data, then I blame the vendor, not
A-P.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
