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

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#111

Post by epo »

SomeCallMeTim wrote: post #6

I still show my contracts to my lawyer, and sometimes really fight for certain clauses, but I'm realistic: Sometimes having a signed contract is more important to me than certain categories of unlikely risk mitigation. If you have the luxury of leverage -- the ability and willingness to walk away if the contract isn't perfect -- then yes. Hammer it out to protect your interests. But if the contract is critical to the…

My experience is that the people who jerk you around with contracts are usually bad payers. If it's a bad contract then the prospect of income is very uncertain.

Business ultimately relies in trust, if they give you a poor contract then it is a strong reason not to trust them over anything.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#112

Post by petercooper »

radarsat1 wrote: post #75

Articles like this depress me, because in 1998, I totally knew how to make websites, but didn't know I could make money doing it. Instead I was 18 and doing what I was supposed to do, that is I was busy going to school, and now I'm 31 and still in school not making money. What's wrong with me? Sigh.

At certain times in certain industries, it definitely pays to be brazen and shameless, particularly with your rates and aspirations. I never was either but am becoming more so after a great deal of hindsight :-)

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#113

Post by brk »

dfriedmn wrote: post #29
brk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't be employee #1. Ever. I get your point, but if those things are true, then that would not be the proper job for you to take, no matter how risk prone or risk averse the founder is.

You should still be honest with employees. They'll prove better in the long run if you are. Not a lot of stories where withholding the truth from your employees ends up being something that a boss feels great about...

It's a very fine line. I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, but every startup I have been at, bar one, has run out of money. Sometimes multiple times. You get bridge loans, venture debt, whatever. I also find that even most seasoned startup employees don't really understand the finer points of finances in a venture backed company and how quickly goings can turn.

It would generally be advisable to tell someone coming in "We have 2 months of finances, but expect (or need) to close this large deal to get some sustainability." But at what point do you not need to have that conversation? With 6 months of money? 12? 24?

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#114

Post by BoppreH »

willyt wrote: post #106
fleitz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cont…

Buildings are expected to last, and cutting corners (on multi decade support, for example) is not exactly a "mistake" like the one that would spring a leak. Aside from that, where do you draw the line?

If the software doesn't work with accented characters and it wasn't in the specs, do you blame the coder? Reading that common-but-not-currently-used-here file type? IPv6 support?

Maybe it's because I'm a coder, but if you want a building to withstand an earthquake, you gotta say so.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#115

Post by dctoedt »

Here are some specific contract provisions that can cause real-world problems for your business. (Shameless plug: These are discussed, and illustrated with true stories, in my short e-book, Signing a Business Contract: A Checklist for Greater Peace of Mind, at http://www.ontechnologylaw.com/before-you-sign-a-business-co...)

* Most-favored customer clauses

* Exclusive-rights provisions

* Indemnity obligations

* Automatic renewal

* Confidentiality obligations (or no confidentiality obligations)

* Termination for convenience

* Unilateral amendment rights

* Best-efforts obligations

* Assignment-consent requirements

* Non-compete / no-hire / no-solicitation clauses

* Tax consequences

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#116

Post by vacri »

nknight wrote: post #101
vacri wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: ht…

Cheers, thanks for the info.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#117

Post by lsc »

notahacker wrote: post #109
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.

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.

I think that 'unlimited' personal liability needs to be put in perspective; I mean, you take the same risk every time you drive anywhere. Think of it; If you kill someone, and you very easily can when operating a motor vehicle, you can easily be liable for millions of dollars of civil damages. (not to mention the death of another human being.)

Yeah, you have insurance when you drive, but that only covers you up to a certain limit. you can get liability insurance for your business that does the same thing; and judging from the relative costs of those two types of insurance when I've gotten quotes, when you are small, you should probably worry a lot more about the liability you incur when you drive than the liability you incur when you sign a contract.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#118

Post by fabjan »

willyt wrote: post #108
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?

Here in Sweden a lot of contracts are standardized. Extremely so in the construction industry.

We have a standard contract called "Avtal 90" (lit. Contract 90), that a lot of industries use.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#119

Post by radarsat1 »

aasarava wrote: post #78
radarsat1 wrote: post #75

Articles like this depress me, because in 1998, I totally knew how to make websites, but didn't know I could make money doing it. Instead I was 18 and doing what I was supposed to do, that is I was busy going to school, and now I'm 31 and still in school not making money. What's wrong with me? Sigh.

It's still possible to make money building web sites, perhaps more so than ever. If you aren't happy with still being in school, why aren't you putting the pieces in place to start your own web development practice?

You make a good point. Mostly the answer is that after 10 years I'm definitely going to see this through and finish my degree :)

But also, 10 years ago I might have been interested in web development, today I have developed skills in other areas (robotics, embedded programming, etc). It would be a shame not to put them to use. Perhaps more importantly, if I got back into web stuff, I'd be quite far behind in the game; I simply wouldn't have the skills for someone with my experience level. Probably I could get up to speed quickly, but I'd prefer to stick to what I know; there just happens to be so much work in web stuff lately that looking at the job market I sometimes get this omninous feeling that I've been making a mistake...

Anyways, looking for work now for when I'm done my degree later this year, so we'll see how it goes. I have an impression that this must be a common feeling for people at the end of their doctoral studies, so I try not to be overly worried.

Re: Fucking Sue Me

#120

Post by trocker »

mathattack wrote: post #67

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 gent…

Right, 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
Post reply on HN