4 ms·

If a person was asking for the crazy things I see in contracts, yes, I'd agree with you since it shows intent. If you treat companies like that, you miss out o

If a person was asking for the crazy things I see in contracts, yes, I'd agree with you since it shows intent. If you treat companies like that, you miss out on opportunities since the crazy stuff in the contract is negotiable and the guy you're negotiating with didn't write the contract and won't mind you crossing out the bad parts that keep both of you from a mutually beneficial deal. Companies are made of various factions who's goals may only be loosely aligned with the company's goals. The lawyer drafting the contract is trying to protect the company. If you weren't rewarded for making the company lots of money, only punished if the company gets sued, how would you write a contract?

crdoconnor 10y ago
>If a person was asking for the crazy things I see in contracts, yes, I'd agree with you since it shows intent. Usually somebody did. And, if the person who hands you the contract acts surprised about its contents that isn't good either. It demonstrates a dangerous lack of control. >If you treat companies like that, you miss out on opportunities since the crazy stuff in the contract is negotiable and the guy you're negotiating with didn't write the contract and won't mind you crossing out the bad parts that keep both of you from a mutually beneficial deal. This is exactly what I used to think when I encountered a guy who apparently hadn't read his contract, acted surprised about its contents and he was happy to change it. He later ended up not paying me as he ran out of money without noticing. Apparently he not only neglected to read his contracts, he neglected to read his bank statements. So far he's the only person who acted surprised about the contents of his contract. >The lawyer drafting the contract is trying to protect the company. Egregious fuck-you clauses can actually hurt the company's standing in court since a judge may decide the rest of the contract shouldn't be enforceable (at least under UK law). Either way, unless the client is exceptional in all other respects or you really need them it's usually worth walking away.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  I'm not sure I agree with you (at least not yet) but I upvoted you for sharing your experience/data points. My own view/thoughts on this is are shaped by an extremely small sample set so I could be wrong.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>If a person was asking for the crazy things I see in contracts, yes, I'd agree with you since it shows intent. Usually somebody did. And, if the person who hands you the contract acts surprised about its contents that isn't good either. It demonstrates a dangerous lack of control. >If you treat companies like that, you miss out on opportunities since the crazy stuff in the contract is negotiable and the guy you're negotiating with didn't write the contract and won't mind you crossing out the bad parts that keep both of you from a mutually beneficial deal. This is exactly what I used to think when I encountered a guy who apparently hadn't read his contract, acted surprised about its contents and he was happy to change it. He later ended up not paying me as he ran out of money without noticing. Apparently he not only neglected to read his contracts, he neglected to read his bank statements. So far he's the only person who acted surprised about the contents of his contract. >The lawyer drafting the contract is trying to protect the company. Egregious fuck-you clauses can actually hurt the company's standing in court since a judge may decide the rest of the contract shouldn't be enforceable (at least under UK law). Either way, unless the client is exceptional in all other respects or you really need them it's usually worth walking away.

chrisbennet 10y ago
I'm not sure I agree with you (at least not yet) but I upvoted you for sharing your experience/data points. My own view/thoughts on this is are shaped by an extremely small sample set so I could be wrong.