Hacker News Reader

This isn't an "obvious" clerical mistake though. It's common for option schedules to be unique. I could absolutely see a person whose work is supposed to go on for about a year being given a schedule commensurate with that timeline.

As for sitting on it for 30 years. Lawyers are expensive - more than the cost to resolve the issue 30 years ago, but given the recent stock climb, it's now more than worth it.

I would have sued.

View on HN

I could buy it if the author had been stewing on this the whole time but never engaged a lawyer because lawyers are expensive. But the post makes it clear that he didn't notice what the document said until 2024. Both sides clearly thought it was meant to be "years" at the time it was signed.

Yes, the last part is the critical piece. It could have been a one-sided error, but actually everyone thought they were signing the same erroneous thing. There's nothing here.

>Both sides clearly thought it was meant to be "years" at the time it was signed.

That'd be the thing to prove, and it's not as cut and dried when the documentation and one of the parties both say otherwise.

It’s easy to prove for the author, there’s this whole post saying they didn’t realize it was quarters until decades after the fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com