undefined | Better HN

0 pointswebwright15y ago0 comments

"In this case, where there is virtually zero chance of legal proceedings actually resulting...."

Dunno about NZ's legal system-- you're probably right. In the US, a rich person with an axe to grind could make your life hell. They might gleefully spend $20k to teach some snotty kids a lesson, even if they knew they would lose. Meanwhile, the kids are maxing out credit cards to cover the cost of their out-of-his-league lawyer and are horribly distracted from actually building stuff.

Even the spectre of a lawsuit could scuttle fundraising hope. Investors don't want to touch people with enemies. If you had early acquisition interest, what happens in the reps and warranties phase when you disclose that there MIGHT be a lawsuit on the horizon? Could it scare a suitor off?

All this for 5-10k pageviews on your blog, tops?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

SupremumLimit15y ago· 2 in thread

It's exactly the same in NZ - if you have money, you can make somebody's life hell even without a trace of wrongdoing on their part.

oreilly15y ago

NZ does have a major point of difference from the US - the courts will often "award" the costs of the case from a successful defendant to the originator.

This tends to discourage abuse of the legal system for intimidation, as there is a risk it will backfire on you and you will end up paying for all lawyers involved.

SupremumLimit15y ago

It's a much smaller risk to the side with money. If you didn't have that much money to begin with, you may not even be able to afford defense, or you have to rack up huge lawyer bills for an uncertain outcome. And in the case of companies you can't even represent yourself, you have to have a lawyer. Also, awarding costs may or may not happen and is separate from the outcome of the case. So it might discourage _some_ abuse, but not much.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse