Everything you guys have said makes sense and I anticipated much of this as it would be my view in another sphere.
I am struggling to find the words I really want to say here.
Opinion seems to fall into two camps:-
1, those who say this is terrible and should not be allowed and
2, those who say look to the contract and get a lawyer or just walk away from this and build a new site.
If you had just paid $34,000.00 for a new hand made car I wonder if you would simply park it by the side of the road and walk away from it when it broke down and put the experience down to experience.
If you had a house built and there were holes in the walls and the doors wouldn't close you wouldn't need a lawyer because there are building regulations in all civilised countries preventing the builder from handing over a product which is clearly unsuitable for habitation.
If the house had minor defects which were not immidiately spotted but arose over the months after moving in then you would probably need a lawyer because the devil is in the detail and the facts would require careful sifting
So, in essence, most purchases of any product bought in the civilised world are covered by a series of regulations and legislative rules preventing a buyer from getting bitten by sharks. Except web building of course!
If it is so obvious to you and the other proper web designers and builders both here and the couple of other forums I have asked these questions of that this web build as a complete load of amateurish pooh then why is this designer telling me that the site just needs a couple tweeks and it's all finished.
The mission statement written by the designer sets the stall out for a multi national, multi lingual social networking site. You don't have to be psycic to read into that it requires geographical support.
A naieve 25 year old graduate language student who knows absolutely nothing about web design will believe anything that is told to her by a fancy talking PR person who knows little about web building herself but can talk a good web design. Why should my friend need to write a legally compliant specification which she wouldn't understand after she had written it when she is being sold down the river by this Expert with more front than Blackpool and Coney Island put together.
Honest people don't do this, I shouldn't need a lawyer, I should be able to take this matter to the American trades description service, if one exists. There should be some rules and some guidance and this developer should be told by some body or other or a group of you guys that the work is awful and to pay back the money. Why should my friend need to pay out fortunes to prove breech of contract and still stand a chance of failing because the judge doesn't understand web building neither do the lawyers or the jury.
I would be content to fund a lawyer if I felt that there was detail to sort out or that one component was faulty but when it is so baltently obvious that not only the functionality of the site but all the underlying framework is of such poor quality I can't see that it should require a lawyer to point this out.
This is not about a contract, it's about honesty, skill and compliance or in real terms a lack of honesty a lack of skill and fraudulent deception.
For Oakleaves, the statement "Fuchsia charged Jamie $34,000.00 to build her website but does it function as it should?" is written such that I am asking for the opinions of others who are using the site to answer the question honestly rather than ask others to agree with a list of issues that I feel are relevent. Anyway you have all answered the question. No the site doesn't wotk and it's a disgrace. The question is 'what is the industry going to to do about this, how about some self regulation for the future guys'?
..............................Clive
PS. If as you have rightly pointed out, you view a number of forums then you may see this post again, sorry for repetition but this fight is extreemely time consuming for me writing as it must be for you being kind enough to share your time with me