Linkbait. Some of my competitors write contracts specifically so that they can sue other companies. How about this, I fucking read my contracts and I don't sign bullshit.
Thanks for sharing this. Do you have any tips for things to look out for?
Fucking Sue Me
81–90 of 152 posts
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#82Re: Fucking Sue Me
#83Ugh. 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.
> 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.
It reminds me a little of something Ferriss wrote about in 4HW - just telling some of his minions that if it would cost <$100 to make a problem go away, they had his standing permission to spend that <$100.
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#84Not just a way to run a business, but a way to live life. Might not work for everyone, just as the opposite of whatever this strategy is may not work for everyone.
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#85TL;DR;
"Get lucky"... Then walk away with survivor bias.
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#86Remember watching a vid (1) where Pud explicitly mentioned his mom being said lawyer and his dad (as mentioned in the article) being the entrepreneur. Wonder why he left that out this time. I certainly enjoyed the dichotomy know who his folks were and what role each played.
(1) http://vimeo.com/25489184
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#87The interesting part of this from my perspective is "my dad - a lifelong entrepreneur."
I recently saw that pud is a year younger than me, and we entered the job market at almost the same time with similar skill sets. Why did it take me so goddamn long to pull my head out of my ass and finally start my own company (at 35)?
Perhaps pud's acceptance of risk has a genetic component, or at the very least he was brought up in an environment where he learned to adjust to uncertainty.
He credits laziness - but we all know that lazy + smart = effective. I wonder if that's part of entrepreneurial DNA as well...
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#88Ugh. 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.
Here's the problem: if they do end up suing you, and you just accepted whatever provisions they put in their contract, you're going to be screwed. The first version of a contract always strongly favors the party providing it, it's not malicious, it's just the right way to do it.
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#89Earlier 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.
Here's the problem: if they do end up suing you, and you just accepted whatever provisions they put in their contract, you're going to be screwed. The first version of a contract always strongly favors the party providing it, it's not malicious, it's just the right way to do it.
It is never right to proffer a deal that you know to be unfair to another party.
Re: Fucking Sue Me
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another perspective that is equally true: Employee #1 is getting paid to see how a startup is created, struggles, pivots, pivots again, and eventually turns into a viable business. There is no better way to prepare yourself to be a founder than to be an early employee in a startup.
I definitely understand where you are coming from (and I didn't downvote you), but I have to disagree. That employee (we'll call her Sarah) isn't being paid to see how a startup is created; she's paying to see how a startup is created. She's paying heavily. She's losing money in the form of a lower salary compared to equivalent jobs, and she's losing money in the form of losing free-time compared to equivalent jobs.…
[deleted]