3 ms·

How is the answer to this not obvious? You bought services from people. You have the money to pay them. It’s a genuine question… who is it that looks at this

How is the answer to this not obvious? You bought services from people. You have the money to pay them. It’s a genuine question… who is it that looks at this situation and is unclear about whether to pay the people whose services you have already consumed? If their invoices are due go pay them NOW. Imagine you built some software for someone and when it comes time to pay they say “hey I’d really love to but I’m in a legal situation with my cofounder”. That’s completely unacceptable. Pay your people. And honestly if you don’t know the right answer to this question then you shouldn’t be in business.

OJFord 3y ago
I think you're preaching to a chorister - OP clearly knows that's right and wants to make it happen, they're just concerned about their potential liability if the ex-co-founder tries to make life difficult for them in that way too, after already doing other similar things. It's not totally spelled out, but doesn't sound like they have limited liability company or partnership or whatever (not my jurisdiction) set up, so even if completely unfounded the other party could perhaps try to sue OP personally. Even though it's clearly morally correct to pay them, I can completely understand trying to ensure one's own livelihood etc. not harmed unduly in the process.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  > completely understand trying to ensure one's own livelihood etc. not harmed unduly So can I. And I'd still pay them: my problems are not their problems. They did the work, they should be paid. The possibility that I may be screwed over if I do that doesn't absolve me from the responsibility of holding up my end of the bargain. I can't believe that this is even a question.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    If you can understand that concern, then why can't you believe it's a question? I'm not saying I wouldn't pay them, it's not clear OP won't either - really the post to me reads like seeking reassurance it's going to be ok because that is what they want to do. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, and I don't think all the 'consult a lawyer first' (with the intention of doing it 'properly'/in a way that doesn't have potential liability/fallout) are unreasonable answers.

OJFord 3y ago

I think you're preaching to a chorister - OP clearly knows that's right and wants to make it happen, they're just concerned about their potential liability if the ex-co-founder tries to make life difficult for them in that way too, after already doing other similar things. It's not totally spelled out, but doesn't sound like they have limited liability company or partnership or whatever (not my jurisdiction) set up, so even if completely unfounded the other party could perhaps try to sue OP personally. Even though it's clearly morally correct to pay them, I can completely understand trying to ensure one's own livelihood etc. not harmed unduly in the process.

HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
> completely understand trying to ensure one's own livelihood etc. not harmed unduly So can I. And I'd still pay them: my problems are not their problems. They did the work, they should be paid. The possibility that I may be screwed over if I do that doesn't absolve me from the responsibility of holding up my end of the bargain. I can't believe that this is even a question.
- OJFord 3y ago
  If you can understand that concern, then why can't you believe it's a question? I'm not saying I wouldn't pay them, it's not clear OP won't either - really the post to me reads like seeking reassurance it's going to be ok because that is what they want to do. I don't think it's an unreasonable question, and I don't think all the 'consult a lawyer first' (with the intention of doing it 'properly'/in a way that doesn't have potential liability/fallout) are unreasonable answers.