Paying a third party?

I hired someone to do some work for me and they now want me to pay a third party (ie not them).

I fully trust the third party but I do not wish to get involved (as it would mean 4 people are involved in an interaction between 2 people).

Is this reasonable? Currently the person I hired is not getting paid as they are refusing to give me their paypal.

Thanks, Andy

The client has the choice of where his money is going, the money he earned, and how he wants to spend it, the payer wouldnt be getting in any trouble.

It should be the clients choice on where the money goes, since it is HIS money after all.

Regards.

Note: You forgot to mention the fact that you will take the money if he doesn't give you his paypal in 24 hours

I think that if you can verify with both your freelancer and the third party, all together...and everyone is aware of the situation, I don't see the problem.

Once you pay...how the freelancer wants to be paid, whatever happens after that is now between the third party and the person you hired. You are now relinquished of all responsibility and you don't need to pay anyone else anything...

It isn't your responsibility...and if what Garrett says is true...that you'll end up not paying him at all...then I don't see how that is ethical or moral to begin with...even to consider an option such as that.

You hired them not the sub-contractor, they sub-contracted the job. If you have a contract stating otherwise you pay them, it's their problem to pay the sub-contractor.

If I ever use sub-contractors for programming, I pay them myself, I NEVER get the client to pay them directly. That is simply unprofessional.

Originally Posted by Julian You hired them not the sub-contractor, they sub-contracted the job. If you have a contract stating otherwise you pay them, it's their problem to pay the sub-contractor. If I ever use sub-contractors for programming, I pay them myself, I NEVER get the client to pay them directly. That is simply unprofessional.

I do not see how it's unproffesional. All the contracter is paying the client where he wants to be paid. I don't see any harm in that.

Originally Posted by Garrett All the contracter is paying the client where he wants to be paid.

Can you rephrase that? I understood none of it.

The client pays the contractor to get the job done. If the contractor decides to use a sub-contractor, that's his problem thus he has to pay for it. Asking the client to pay for a sub-contractor is like saying, "Hey, I can't do this myself so I hired another guy to do it for me. But you have to pay him for me, in addition to what you're already paying me."

Originally Posted by Garrett Note: You forgot to mention the fact that you will take the money if he doesn't give you his paypal in 24 hours

Because I want to get this sorted I hoped it would get you to sort your act out.

They want the money to pay for something else, eg some new clothes.

Also this is nothing personal but I'm ignoring Garrett's and Bryan's posts as they are both involved, I guess some people don't understand when I want to get an outside opinion.

Its 2006. Its outsourcing. Yes.

Even if it is outsourcing the original contractor has sub-contracted, it is up to him to pay his sub contractors, not the client.

Originally Posted by Julian Even if it is outsourcing the original contractor has sub-contracted, it is up to him to pay his sub contractors, not the client.

Ok use these names im confused:
Andy - Coder
Garrett - Sub Contracted
Host - Client