3 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIf 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.