4 ms·

As much as I admire the candor & spirit of this, at the same time, I'd hate to have the chance of being completely destroyed by the lawyers. Dodged a bullet in

As much as I admire the candor & spirit of this, at the same time, I'd hate to have the chance of being completely destroyed by the lawyers. Dodged a bullet in this case, but to me, the downside is not even close to worth the upside. $400k contract, but if things go horribly awry, their lawyers are coming after you for millions, and drag you through the mud. Not worth it, in my opinion.

ojbyrne 13y ago
But from the other side, the perspective is probably: - legal fees are going to be in the $100k's - he clearly has little money, so even if we win, we'll end up garnishing his wages for 40 years to get a fraction of what we sued for. - we might not win, then we're further in the hole So take the loss and move on. Thus from pud's side it's not an insane risk, but a calculated one.
- brazzy 13y ago
  That assumes the other side is rational and motivated only by profit. Which is not always a given (or possible to tell in advance).
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    I imagine there are cases where companies have to go after bad contracts even when they know they won't get their money. Whether it's a duty to their shareholders, sending a message to future contractors, what-have-you. And depending on the size of the company, their lawyers may be getting paid regardless of whether they are doing this case or not (not really sure how legal departments work).
Spearchucker 13y ago
It is human nature to be more motivated by the threat of loss than the possibility of gaining something of equal value. Regardless of our predilection, neither is wrong, nor right. It simply is. Being aware of it however, gives us choice.
joezydeco 13y ago
I interpreted Pud's dad like this: "Fucking sue me" == "I'm 22, have no assets to speak of, and you're going to try and collect millions on me? Good luck." In Pud's particular case, it's easier to say this. If you're an established firm with hundreds of employees and millions in cashflow, not so much.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Exactly. When I was about 20, one of my partners emptied the bank account leaving us unable to make payroll/rent and finish some client jobs. Had several clients come angry demanding we finish or they'd sue us. My dad gave me the exact same advice. We'd try to find some way of finishing the job over a longer period of time, otherwise, hey, lose your deposit, and good luck suing me or my company that have zero assets. It worked fine. Years later at a more successful startup, the "sue me" thing doesn't work so well, and a pretty major win depended on a simple "and/or" clause written with inverse logic.

ojbyrne 13y ago

But from the other side, the perspective is probably: - legal fees are going to be in the $100k's - he clearly has little money, so even if we win, we'll end up garnishing his wages for 40 years to get a fraction of what we sued for. - we might not win, then we're further in the hole So take the loss and move on. Thus from pud's side it's not an insane risk, but a calculated one.

brazzy 13y ago
That assumes the other side is rational and motivated only by profit. Which is not always a given (or possible to tell in advance).
- JonFish85 13y ago
  I imagine there are cases where companies have to go after bad contracts even when they know they won't get their money. Whether it's a duty to their shareholders, sending a message to future contractors, what-have-you. And depending on the size of the company, their lawyers may be getting paid regardless of whether they are doing this case or not (not really sure how legal departments work).

Spearchucker 13y ago

It is human nature to be more motivated by the threat of loss than the possibility of gaining something of equal value. Regardless of our predilection, neither is wrong, nor right. It simply is. Being aware of it however, gives us choice.

joezydeco 13y ago

I interpreted Pud's dad like this: "Fucking sue me" == "I'm 22, have no assets to speak of, and you're going to try and collect millions on me? Good luck." In Pud's particular case, it's easier to say this. If you're an established firm with hundreds of employees and millions in cashflow, not so much.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Exactly. When I was about 20, one of my partners emptied the bank account leaving us unable to make payroll/rent and finish some client jobs. Had several clients come angry demanding we finish or they'd sue us. My dad gave me the exact same advice. We'd try to find some way of finishing the job over a longer period of time, otherwise, hey, lose your deposit, and good luck suing me or my company that have zero assets. It worked fine. Years later at a more successful startup, the "sue me" thing doesn't work so well, and a pretty major win depended on a simple "and/or" clause written with inverse logic.