5 ms·

Thats a pretty unreasonable request that a billion dollar company agree not to include deadlines in their settlement offers moving forward. In fact I've never

Thats a pretty unreasonable request that a billion dollar company agree not to include deadlines in their settlement offers moving forward. In fact I've never heard of a settlement agreement without a deadline, it wouldn't amount to malpractice but it would be pretty negligent to offer any type of settlement agreement on open ended terms of acceptance. As to the NDA/confidentiality, that too is the default of settlemenre, and if this were in litigation any settlement talks/negotiations are confidential by rules of the court.

tptacek 10y ago
Which is why I said "nobody outside their counsel's office". Here, we're all pretty clear these aren't good-faith deadlines, but rather negotiating devices intended to coerce people into accepting terms without consultation with their own lawyers.
- debacle 10y ago
  AirBnB is a business.
bigbugbag 10y ago
This doesn't read as a settlement to me. It reads as "if you want the rest of the sum you are entitled too, you have to sign this NDA so you won't be able to further tell the public how we've tried to not reimburse the damage".
- will_brown 10y ago
  In fairness I haven't read the contract between this host and airbnb...but very unlikely is anyone "entitled" to any funds legally. Rather, airbnb likely has a provision for a claims process to evaluate these types of incidents, make determinations and if applicable make an offer to settle the claim. But the host is not unilaterally entitled to any funds. Now if the host is unsatisfied with the terms of the settlement for any purpose, whether it be the amount, the required release of liability or confidentiality...then, the host can reject/counter the offer and take it to court if necessary, where they can prove they are entitled to damages and airbnb is liable for said damages. But for the record you are right that is how it reads, because that's the rule on how settlement agreements read. In other words if you want to resolve x here and now with me putting cash in your pocket, while simultaneously waiving my right to due process, you will release me from further liability regarding the claim, and agree not to disclose the terms of the settlement. Otherwise you can incur the time and costs of court and I'll do the same to begin preparing my defense, And that's why I can't leave the offer open ended because the circumstances of the claim have changed (in this case time and cost involved, but in others it could be evidence that comes out that helping my case).
  - sk5t 10y ago
    Is there room for such a term as "strongarm tactics" in your lexicon? And how do we feel about the gross imbalance in power between AirBnB and an individual?
    - will_brown 10y ago
      I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel, just objectively explaining why settlements have to have deadlines. Of course unlevel playing fields are always a concern, obviously that's naturally going to be the case between multi billion dollar companies and the little guy. One party (hopefully) has fully developed processes and procedures, likely developed/vetted by a large firm or in-house Counsel, but forcing open ended settlement offers on them isn't leveling the playing field. Such a system might only unlevel the playing field more, for example this claims process (while far from perfect) likely would exist, it would basically be telling the little guy to hire a lawyer from the beginning. Yes there are terms for "strong arming" that would invalidate contracts or even this settlement: "coercion". Now think more along the lines of the GodFather making an offer he can't refuse (gun to your head asking you to sign) or I'm locking you in the room until you agree verse an offer with 24 hour deadline to accept with a confidentiality provision.

tptacek 10y ago

Which is why I said "nobody outside their counsel's office". Here, we're all pretty clear these aren't good-faith deadlines, but rather negotiating devices intended to coerce people into accepting terms without consultation with their own lawyers.

debacle 10y ago
AirBnB is a business.

bigbugbag 10y ago

This doesn't read as a settlement to me. It reads as "if you want the rest of the sum you are entitled too, you have to sign this NDA so you won't be able to further tell the public how we've tried to not reimburse the damage".

will_brown 10y ago
In fairness I haven't read the contract between this host and airbnb...but very unlikely is anyone "entitled" to any funds legally. Rather, airbnb likely has a provision for a claims process to evaluate these types of incidents, make determinations and if applicable make an offer to settle the claim. But the host is not unilaterally entitled to any funds. Now if the host is unsatisfied with the terms of the settlement for any purpose, whether it be the amount, the required release of liability or confidentiality...then, the host can reject/counter the offer and take it to court if necessary, where they can prove they are entitled to damages and airbnb is liable for said damages. But for the record you are right that is how it reads, because that's the rule on how settlement agreements read. In other words if you want to resolve x here and now with me putting cash in your pocket, while simultaneously waiving my right to due process, you will release me from further liability regarding the claim, and agree not to disclose the terms of the settlement. Otherwise you can incur the time and costs of court and I'll do the same to begin preparing my defense, And that's why I can't leave the offer open ended because the circumstances of the claim have changed (in this case time and cost involved, but in others it could be evidence that comes out that helping my case).
- sk5t 10y ago
  Is there room for such a term as "strongarm tactics" in your lexicon? And how do we feel about the gross imbalance in power between AirBnB and an individual?
  - will_brown 10y ago
    I'm not trying to tell anyone how to feel, just objectively explaining why settlements have to have deadlines. Of course unlevel playing fields are always a concern, obviously that's naturally going to be the case between multi billion dollar companies and the little guy. One party (hopefully) has fully developed processes and procedures, likely developed/vetted by a large firm or in-house Counsel, but forcing open ended settlement offers on them isn't leveling the playing field. Such a system might only unlevel the playing field more, for example this claims process (while far from perfect) likely would exist, it would basically be telling the little guy to hire a lawyer from the beginning. Yes there are terms for "strong arming" that would invalidate contracts or even this settlement: "coercion". Now think more along the lines of the GodFather making an offer he can't refuse (gun to your head asking you to sign) or I'm locking you in the room until you agree verse an offer with 24 hour deadline to accept with a confidentiality provision.