4 ms·
I think his dad is a good advisor. The reason he was hard to sue is that he's so small. If things went really South on a small project, what's the worst thing
by mathattack 15y ago
I think his dad is a good advisor.
The reason he was hard to sue is that he's so small. If things went really South on a small project, what's the worst thing that happens? He's 22 and talented in New York - he declares bankruptcy, and gets another job or stays on Dad's couch. This is a situational thing - you can accept liability when the downside is so low. This is why legal departments in small firms are much gentler than legal departments in the Fortune 500. Of course this doesn't work for a large firm, or someone with 3 kids and a mortgage. His dad would have said, "Go get a real job" or something like that.
Similar on the hiring - when you're that small, you invite someone to take the risk for you. You can take more risk when there's limited downside. And in this case it was the other guy's downside - if there was no work, he'd be the one in trouble.
- mikealle233 15y agoExactly. Put another way: Odds of getting sued: 1% Max downside if he gets sued: What? 50k before he declares bankruptcy? Ok, so risk adjusted cost of the "just fucking sue me" approach: $500. $500 vs. $350,000...hmmm...tough choice. You might say, well, it's not as though it's one or the other. You can request reasonable changes and not jeopardize the 350k. Well, ya, I suppose so, but what are the odds that any request you make will kill the deal? If it's also 1%, then the expected cost is $3500. That's still more expensive than the "just fucking sue me" approach. In reality, the odds of killing a deal over contract disagreements are much higher than getting sued.
- trocker 15y agoRight, how much could that company have sued him for?! Hahhaha, he wouldn't have written this article if not for the risk that he had taken! Its a nice way of telling people -- 'go take risks, be happy man!' :D