djk at tobit.co.uk
Wed May 2 00:04:49 BST 2012
On 01/05/12 20:52, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> I went with none. I didn't see the point of paying for something that
> seems to have zero legal (AFAIK) legal precedent.
The problem with PI is that you have to have it when the punter makes
the claim, not (just) when you did the work. Which means that if the BBC
(just talking very hypothetically) wants to sue three years after you
left them, and you have no PI in force, then you could be stuffed.
I have successfully argued, in a non IR35 threatening way, that the
customer has to test and accept the work that I do. Once (s)he has
accepted the work, and they sell as theirs, then they must accept
In my view demanding PI for programmers (or other production occupation
of customers' geegaws) is incorrect and probably not enforceable in a
court. Where it is mandatory is if one provides a (consultancy) service
(for money) directly to a company for its own internal use. Or so it was
explained to me by a Lloyds broker that I did some work for many years
ago. The people that I contracted to had the PI and they warranted the
package that they supplied to that broker.
Obviously everyone must have public liability for those days when one
just can't seem to stop oneself dropping the customer's computer on his
PS IANAL & IANAIB
PPS Technically E&OE is a trademark for E&OE insurance and so I won't
use it. Just bear that in mind as well though.
More information about the london.pm