31–40 of 182 posts
‘ On Wednesday, some of the people who posted about the gift card said that when they went to redeem the offer, they got an error message saying the voucher had been canceled. When TechCrunch checked the voucher, the Uber Eats page provided an error message that said the gift card “has been canceled by the issuing party and is no longer valid.”’
Do not redeem the card!!
I just don't immediately believe a publicly-traded company with this many users does something this stupid.
This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…
The $20 is "due consideration" - just like how some deals involve selling an item for a dollar.
This reminds me of the family who was awarded $4 in damages for a wrongful death suit. [0] It's almost worse than nothing. [0] https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2018/06/01/jury-awards-family-f...
They're trying to use the equivalent of "pizzas for everyone who works late for this crunch!", and consider the matter closed.
That's really not going to work.
This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…
Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20.
I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive, whether during litigation or even something like an audit. If someone is buying a company, investing, making a major loan, that's the kind thing which comes up in due diligence and can be annoying.
So I don't think they were paying you for the code, so much as trying to come into compliance. Very likely, this was triggered by some similar audit for some deal they were trying to make.
This reminds me of something that happened at a former employer. After I had been employed there for a couple of years, someone in HR or Legal noticed that the programmers had never signed any "our code belongs to the company" agreement. So they asked us to sign a paper to that effect, and gave us each a check for $20. My thought was that I always assumed the company owned this code, but if they were going to pay for…
Here's what I suspect happened: Any contract requires consideration. Without it, it's not a valid contract. It doesn't require fair consideration, so a clause giving e.g. $1 is typical for many contracts. They were nice and bumped it up to $20. I suspect your work DID belong to the company already, under work-for-hire doctrine, but an explicit contract avoids that ambiguity. Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive,…
> Ambiguity can be bad and super-expensive
If the corporation had some ambiguity in their favor, I expect they would call it "value" and ask for as much as they could get to remove it. But if the ambiguity is in favor of an employee or client, let's remove it for a token $20. Ugly society this one is.