Thought this one was interesting - http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/website-scars-top-surgeon/2006/08/18/1155408025299.html. Apparently a surgeon was able to collect damages against a website designer who had built a site for him but in the tribunal's view not delivered a site which was up to scratch.

Here's part of their reasoning:

"The promises made by Ms Fitzgerald in the original contract to "inspire values of steadfastness, commitment to quality …" and give the viewer a "perception of professionalism, quality …" were not delivered, the tribunal concluded, "either in the look of the website (the photographs of naked women) nor in the way in which the copywriters edited the copy"."

This seems a slippery slope to me. What next? A writer paying damages because their article didn't meet with the client's approval, or a dress designer being out-of-pocket because the dress didn't meet expectations?

All websites should be designed with rounded edges.

(Why can we not click on the title of the tread in the index list. For me, that was the logical place to click)

I've never paid anyone to design a website for me, but if I ever did then I would reserve the right to proof read it myself before I authorised it to go on the net. Spelling and/or grammatical mistakes are totally inexcusable.

As for nude female images, these are sometimes used in our local papers in advertisements for skincare treatments and body contouring etc, without apparently raising the ire of the local religious right wowsers. IE no orchestrated letter writing campaigns! But these images are carefully and tastefully presented. Perhaps the images used in the website in question were inappropriate. But if we don't get to see them, then how can we express an opinion?

From what we know, I support the doctor's successful action. But if the client was always able to have the last word, then this kind of problem would not arise.

An odd little item. There is insufficient information in the article (so what's new?) to make a judgement one way or the other.

But I suspect that this is simply a claim by the plastic surgeon to get his money back for a job badly done. The gory detail of nudity and lousy spelling makes good headlines, but was simply provided as examples that the work did not meet the specifications.

I don't think we should read much else into it. I doubt that the site ever went live, and if it did, the surgeon should bear the blame for not proofreading the end-product.

Footnote: what did he expect for less than $5,000 anyway?