Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fucking Sue Me

pud.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 152 posts

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#101

Post by nknight »

vacri wrote: post #96
nknight wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't sign a contract for personal liability on something that big, but bankruptcy law exists for a reason.

Didn't the US essentially nullify bankruptcy laws towards Bush's second term? As in, you can declare bankruptcy, but it doesn't clear your debts?

Uh, no. You're thinking of BAPCPA, which sucked, but was a far cry from what you're suggesting. Chapter 7 (straight liquidation) is harder but still very possible, especially if you've just been slapped with a multimillion-dollar verdict, while Chapter 13 (individual reorg) came out mostly intact, and 13 does result in discharges (but there are limits to the amount of debt you can have and qualify for 13).

BAPCPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and...

Chapter 7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_7,_Title_11,_United_Sta...

Chapter 13: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_13,_Title_11,_United_St...

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#102

Post by nandemo »

pud wrote: post #25
nandemo wrote: post #20

> Then there was the time I wanted to hire my first full time employee. I was apprehensive to do it because I only had enough money to pay him for 2 months, unless I got another client fast. > “Worry about that in 2 months,” Dad said. This seems really dishonest. Yeah, everybody knows that startups are risky, but if you can't afford to pay more than 2 months of salary, then don't hire a full-timer. Either find a co-f…

Not many companies could afford to pay their entire payroll for a quarter, if sales were $0.00 for that quarter.

Like other comments said, any company should have a revenue forecast. Companies that don't have a steady revenue stream will have enough cash from either capital reserves or financing. If you don't then don't hire a employee.

Companies that already have employees and forecast they cannot make payroll (say) 6 months from now will typically either borrow money or start lay-offs, not hire more people and worry about later. Failing to pay wages is a serious problem.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#103

Post by wnight »

Michiel wrote: post #95
gamble wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, employee #1 is almost always the worst-off person in the company. They get to work like a founder, without the financial benefits. I've been there twice; it isn't a lot of fun. Either found or join a company that has funding.

Isn't it normally that employee number 1 get's some stock options?

Employees are less likely to make money from stock options than actors are to make a cut of net profit.

If you don't get the same type of stock as the VCs, and under all the same conditions, it's worth pennies on the dollar at best and likely simply zero.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#104

Post by Tichy »

Confusion wrote: post #91
nirvana wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point to "fucking sue me" is that you don't "fucking sue" someone over something trivial. So, if the dollar value of some provision in the contract is not worth the cost of a lawsuit, in a way, it is kinda immaterial to the agreement because it would cost more to collect. So, I think the article is trying to hit the middle road you're advocating, though didn't make it as explicitly clear as it could have.

You're assuming companies act rationally and won't sue you if it costs them money. That is a dangerous assumption: one guy that you pissed off is enough to send you down a dark hole.

Also some companies have lawyers as employees. They have to do something with their time.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#106

Post by willyt »

fleitz wrote: post #70
shawnee_ wrote: post #48

The lesson here: it was 1998. "The industry" was still a little fledgling, so the legal territory was still largely unchartered. But it grew into an ugly duckling, quickly. Sent the contract to my lawyer. She marked it up, sent it to the client. Then the client marked it up and sent it back to my lawyer. And so on, back and forth for almost a month. Garbage in, garbage out. During the "ugly duckling" phase, the legal…

Why would a coder ever be held responsible for something not specified in the requirements doc? If people wanted Y2K compliant software in the 70s and 80s they should have specified it. As for multibillion dollar valuations, what's wrong with the valuations on MSFT, AAPL, GOOG? If you think the PE is crazy on LNKD, just short it. As for what VCs are willing to invest for particular companies those investments are mor…

Because it's not unreasonable to expect the coder to supply you with something which will not fail arbitrarily in 10 years for a reason which is 100% predictable. A parallel example: If an Architect designs you a building which develops a leak because of a mistake in a construction detail you would sue for the cost of repairs and damage to property. Either in contract if available or in Tort for negligence if no contract exists.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#107

Post by craigmc »

grellas wrote: post #100

Contract reviews done by lawyers need to follow good-sense guidelines. Some contracts are routine and don't need any form of customizing. The review in such cases is minimal and can even be skipped if the routine nature of the contract is obvious or if the entrepreneur is seasoned enough to identify a clean situation without lawyer help. Most such routine contracts cover simple cases, such as a simple nda or a recurr…

I think the problem a lot of lawyers have is failing to acknowledge the realities of a BIG A v small b situation like the one in pud's example. Of course, it is not the lawyer's place to make decisions on behalf of his or her client as to how much risk they accept in return for a big pot of money. Entrepreneurs need to be aware that their lawyer will always see risk as something to be minimised to the lowest possible level, which is not always something that is possible because of market realities. Equally when instructing a lawyer it is easy to set them on an overtly combative route if you give off too many signs of being up for a fight, or don't give clear enough instructions to the contrary: "Hey, I realise this contract is going to be totally in the other side's favour, and to be honest I have no choice in this. I am doing this deal regardless, so just flag up anything that is totally non-standard or is going to get me in a whole heap of trouble".

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#108

Post by willyt »

grellas wrote: post #100

Contract reviews done by lawyers need to follow good-sense guidelines. Some contracts are routine and don't need any form of customizing. The review in such cases is minimal and can even be skipped if the routine nature of the contract is obvious or if the entrepreneur is seasoned enough to identify a clean situation without lawyer help. Most such routine contracts cover simple cases, such as a simple nda or a recurr…

Why aren't there more standard contracts for the situations described in the article? E.g Construction contracts are generally standard documents with very well documented procedures in the UK even with large (say £50M+) contract sums. But this seems to be an exception, not many other industries do this. I wonder why?

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#109

Post by notahacker »

nirvana wrote: post #35
tptacek wrote: post #10

Ugh. At one extreme: giving your counsel veto power over what contracts you sign, and allowing them to bill time ping-ponging contracts until prospects give up. At the other extreme: just signing everything and saying "fucking sue me" when things go sideways. You should be somewhere in the middle. Contracts more often than not have provisions that are silly for you to accept verbatim. And, contracts more often than n…

I think the point to "fucking sue me" is that you don't "fucking sue" someone over something trivial. So, if the dollar value of some provision in the contract is not worth the cost of a lawsuit, in a way, it is kinda immaterial to the agreement because it would cost more to collect. So, I think the article is trying to hit the middle road you're advocating, though didn't make it as explicitly clear as it could have.

If you accept their version of the contract verbatim, chances are they haven't specified a maximum dollar value of your liabilities to them. Of course, it might still be a losing game for them to sue you into bankruptcy, but that doesn't mean they won't try.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#110

Post by blrgeek »

lojack wrote: post #32
rick888 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being employee #1 is the worst of both worlds. You get the risk of a startup and you most likely will get very little payout if the startup is successful. Most of the people I know that were employee #1 got nothing.

That's reassuring. (putting in my two weeks notice tomorrow to be employee #1)

The learning is incredible - esp. if you've never been in a startup before and you don't have a business background.

Just go in with your eyes wide open, and don't expect to make any money off the stock options. Figure out what you need to do to get your startup off the ground better. Be flexible in doing whatever necessary as Employee #1.

Had huge learning in 6 years. So although I took a pay cut, and I made 0 on stock - I would recommend it to others.

Post reply on HN