undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfancyfredbot28d ago0 comments

I agree with you. It makes no rational sense for the corporation to act this way. I can see how they end up losing a court case but can't explain why they don't pay up.

It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money. I expect the company had created strong incentives for employees to claw that back. Someone has followed those incentives against the interest of the corporation. This happens all the time although in this case they break the law.

Eventually there's a lawsuit and a lot more people get involved including people without any incentive to do illegal things. However those involved originally present some varnished version of the truth (to avoid getting fired!) the company trusts this version of events. They decide to fight the case in court.

Then they lose the case. Those who decided to fight it realise they made a bad choice and they now look bad too. It's at this point that the weirdest thing happens. Why do they choose to close the store instead of paying up? My guess is that it became personal for someone.

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

K0balt28d ago· 4 in thread

It’s a farcical notion that people are uniformly rational actors, as well as the notion that rational is adjacent to just.

It’s an unfortunate fact that many people in positions of wealth and power default to “F-you my lawyers will drown you and I will win” in every single case, regardless of merit.

Many times, that is the singular strategy that has put them in that position of wealth and power. Many times, they apply this strategy to every situation where they already possess an asset or service for which they have not paid, and that asset or service is valued higher than an ongoing good faith relationship with the person or entity that they owe for the asset or service that they received.

It’s a wholly predatory strategy but it can be a very rational calculus, and it can propel you to the very pinnacle of wealth and power. Its continuously surprising to plebs because it goes against the fantasy of the fundamental justice of society that they have been inculcated with, a convenient lie that keeps powerless people in their lane and justifies the use of police powers to protect the criminal activity of the owner class.

I say this as a member of the owner class. I try not to be one of those people, but it’s easy to see justice as an unnecessary and frivolous expense. I’d estimate that a significant fraction of my peers are in this category, and nearly everyone else occasionally dabbles, often without even being aware of it as their lawyers push in that direction.

Ultimately, it’s a side effect of obscene inequality. I don’t know how to fix it, much less how to make the world somehow intrinsically just. IMHO there is no justice except the justice we go out of our way to create. Justice is not the natural state of the world.

fancyfredbotOP28d ago

I agree people and especially corporations act this way. Indeed many people believe that it's a corporation's fiduciary duty to lawyer up if that's expected to be cheaper than paying up.

Here, they are looking at small amounts of money, but they close a store, which presumably involves writing down an asset and forgoing future revenue. This only gives them a small chance of avoiding payment and risks the reputation of the entire firm.

The earlier decisions all fit the narrative of coldly rational, but I find the final decision to close the store doesn't fit. It's almost impossible to imagine how it ends well for the corporation.

K0balt28d ago

I agree. At face value it seems reactive and wonky.

1 more reply

kmeisthax28d ago

> Its continuously surprising to plebs because it goes against the fantasy of the fundamental justice of society that they have been inculcated with, a convenient lie that keeps powerless people in their lane and justifies the use of police powers to protect the criminal activity of the owner class.

Even without the propaganda factor, its also surprising to plebs because there are plenty of plebs who try similar schemes and get their ass handed to them in the courts. Thievery is not an exclusive invention of the well-to-do. But being rich enough means you can actually afford a competent legal defense, which will delay the case out until the opposing party capitulates, because the cost of fighting[0] is far higher for you than them. This is the same reason why convicted felon Donald Trump is also on his second Presidential term. It turns out, you can outrun the long arm of the law, and most people are just not fast enough to do it.

It also doesn't help that the law is really out of shape. The US justice system is specifically optimized to get quick judgments against legally inexperienced defendants, mainly because they can't fight back. It's the same reason why housecats hunt and kill mice and small birds, and not, say, capybara or eagles. But all the features that make it really easy to hunt weaker legal prey also make it harder to take on big cases. Things like lawyers being stupid expensive and there being no fee shifting mechanism means weak defendants fold, but also that the government won't bother fighting tough cases. Which, again, shifts the risk of illegal behavior to the poor and unconnected.

[0] Oh no, I've started to channel the Lines on Maps guy.

K0balt28d ago

lol. Yeah, being an a-whole isn’t the exclusive hobby of the wealthy, by a long shot. Crappy character, unlike the future, is relatively evenly distributed.

amiga38628d ago

> It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money.

It did not, the franchisees simply wanted out because they were offered better paid work overseas.

They told corporate they wanted to sell the franchise back to them, as they say they wanted to recoup their investment in the franchise before they left the USA.

Corporate arrived the same day and started saying the franchise owes them $200,000, didn't inventory the franchise, terminated their franchise that day, seized the franchise that same day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc&t=590s

I don't have the facts about who's right about that, but that corporate behaviour seems remarkably aggressive and fishy to me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

6 comments · 2 top-level

K0balt28d ago· 4 in thread

It’s a farcical notion that people are uniformly rational actors, as well as the notion that rational is adjacent to just.

It’s an unfortunate fact that many people in positions of wealth and power default to “F-you my lawyers will drown you and I will win” in every single case, regardless of merit.

fancyfredbotOP28d ago

I agree people and especially corporations act this way. Indeed many people believe that it's a corporation's fiduciary duty to lawyer up if that's expected to be cheaper than paying up.

The earlier decisions all fit the narrative of coldly rational, but I find the final decision to close the store doesn't fit. It's almost impossible to imagine how it ends well for the corporation.

K0balt28d ago

I agree. At face value it seems reactive and wonky.

1 more reply

kmeisthax28d ago

[0] Oh no, I've started to channel the Lines on Maps guy.

K0balt28d ago

lol. Yeah, being an a-whole isn’t the exclusive hobby of the wealthy, by a long shot. Crappy character, unlike the future, is relatively evenly distributed.

amiga38628d ago

> It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money.

It did not, the franchisees simply wanted out because they were offered better paid work overseas.

They told corporate they wanted to sell the franchise back to them, as they say they wanted to recoup their investment in the franchise before they left the USA.

Corporate arrived the same day and started saying the franchise owes them $200,000, didn't inventory the franchise, terminated their franchise that day, seized the franchise that same day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc&t=590s

I don't have the facts about who's right about that, but that corporate behaviour seems remarkably aggressive and fishy to me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse