> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful".

That's a completely bullshit attack and putting words into his mouth. Gigster has the potentional to possibly to do something awful in the future due to being a company made of different people, with there being no guarantee that the people you're talking to one day are still there the next. And trust is only possible between mutual human beings, not between one human and an amorphous ever-changing conglomerate of humans.

What he wrote was a statement of fact, not of opinion. Gigster can in fact do something really awful and there is no recourse. In any contract negotiation, sometimes you need to be clear what the problem is. If you, as a party to a contract, indeed feel like there is zero chance that other party will do anything to injure you, will keep to their promises, and has your best interests at heart, what is the point of the contract in the first place?

> The implication made here is that the writer believes that gigster is going to "do something awful".

In what other context does it make sense to talk about the right to sue someone other than "doing something awful"? These are not the rules for the office's Secret Santa, this is a legal contract which details what would happen precisely if either party "does something awful"

People don't sue each other because they think they are doing wonderful things, they sue them when they think they've done "something awful".

How should he have asked that question?