> With a young family and a new life beginning, I did not want to ruin the limited time I have on this earth with my loved ones being a dad whose head is somewhere else, rather than enjoying these moments together. This a*hole wasn't worth it. I paid him off to leave us alone.
While understandable from his POV, I'm disappointed to see the guy getting paid for services not rendered, and so reinforcing his tactics.
As an ex-lawyer I'd say this was 100% a good decision. As a profession we make our living off people who say "Dammit I won't pay, it's the principle, it's wrong & immoral." I, and I suspect many other lawyers, would always reply that principles cost a fortune in money time and grey hairs. I had plenty of clients and didn't need to litigate for billable hours.
... if you live/do business in the US. Over the decades, I had quite a lot of this situations in parts of our company or the company as a whole; here you cannot get anything done in this case (most cases didn't go to court as they were too silly, the ones that did we won and we didn't even turn up; just our lawyer while the opposition sat there wasting their time). If you get it to court at all (which is a problem to begin with), it will go no-where and 'the broker' will just lose money and time.
A system where you have to pay bullies because it's cheaper and easier than defending yourself is broken.
Upvote, just because you seem to entertain the notion that "the system" wasn't broken. I haven't heard anyone argue that way in a very long time, and it's refreshing.
If you have a case that’s very likely to win, the broker would know that too. Would they want to pay legal fees to chase a fee they are likely not going to get? I think it was a bad decision to pay.
I kind of get it and as I am aging I get it more and more. You are avoiding headache and actually putting cost to that time spent and stress added to your life. Sometimes it's just not worth it to engage. Not same, but I will put it in the direction of paying a bribe (again, I didn't say same or even same level).
True, but from my point of view OP won because he was able to see through the aholes true plans causing the ahole to only get the crumbs of a much larger piece of the pie at the end.
To us and others it may seem to be a large sum, but to him it was definitely only a pittance of what he intended to take.
> True, but from my point of view OP won because he was able to see through the aholes true plans causing the ahole to only get the crumbs of a much larger piece of the pie at the end.
I didn't get that from the article - I read it as the broker got his full commission.
In fact, it reads as if the broker got even more than he expected, because the final sale price was 25% more.
I agree. I'd love to see more details on what the guy felt he was entitled to. I suspect there was a contract signed early on in their dealings that the author of this blog post is not being forthcoming with.
> I suspect there was a contract signed early on in their dealings that the author of this blog post is not being forthcoming with.
I also think there's more to this.
In the event of no contract, winning this is basically one court visit, plus a cost order against the broker.
In the event of a contract that specifies no payment until the deal is closed with the broker's buyer, that's also going to be one court visit with a cost order against the broker.
The only reason to pay him is if the contract said "in the event of a sale" with no further qualifiers. I'm pretty certain it said something along those lines.
I'm not only disappointed with what the author did, but also I am surprised that he chose to negotiate again with the asshole, who had proven to have no interest in reaching a win-win deal. If I were him, I would have spared an amount of money to be used for legal costs and fee, in case the asshole were awarded. I still would have the peace of mind.
While understandable from his POV, I'm disappointed to see the guy getting paid for services not rendered, and so reinforcing his tactics.