Me: "Hey, if you do X I'll give you $10k."

You: [Does X.] "Can I have my $10k?"

Me: "Nah, the moment's passed. I'm not really feeling it anymore."

Nope. That's sleazy behavior.

If they also want to pursue a lawsuit over his data screw-up, they should. But that's unrelated.

(I think such a suit would be tossed, given his screw-up seems to be based upon Miso not having suitable back-ups, which: The fuck?)

I'm sure that after it gets out how they deal with routine mistakes they'll have highly qualified database engineers lining up at their door to work there because of the excitement of working in such a high stakes environment.

That's usually the nice thing about startups, you don't have to fill out gobs of paperwork and have hours of meetings to get these small perks figured out, it's more of a "good will" thing imho.

But I guess I just have a different opinion when it comes to things that don't have 2 signatures at the bottom of them.

The OP's case is even stronger if he sent an email back saying "Thanks for offering $10k! I have a friend who would be interested!" as that is clear acceptance.

Signatures aren't needed (there's plenty of case law around). Courts are more likely to get involved where money is involved, as that shows firm commitment to a contract.

I am not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, of course.

Well, your opinion is certainly different than the judiciary's opinion of what constitutes a contract, for sure.

A contract need not be written (usually, some exceptions apply). It need only be clear and agreed to by both sides, have some consideration involved and not be against public policy.

If you as a startup owner promise people even verbally that referrals get a bonus, you're creating a binding contract if anyone accepts it. In this case it appears it was written down, which is pretty much a slam dunk for the employee.

If you tell employee "do this and get $10K" and he does and you say "well, I'm not feeling like keeping my end of the bargain now" - it is no different. It is harder to enforce, but that's only difference that lets all kinds of sleazy characters get away with it. If you don't mean to give $10K - don't promise it. Nobody forces anybody to promise it. If you do promise - fulfill your promise. It's very simple, I wonder how people can have trouble with it - unless they meant to cheat at the first place.

Think how many things in our society would break down if this wasn't the case.

Does this mean I can ignore these four e-mails from my boss that formulates his intent for me to work on X and Y, and skip on off to work on Z instead?

If informal agreements are considered contracts (which they legally are), then the startup (or whatever) won't need all that formal processing.

According to this legal source, the only way to prevent your email from being a contract is to "recite in the e-mail that there is no intention to create a contract, except pursuant to a separate written agreement."

Also, you better change that opinion of yours, or else you might get caught in hot water yourself!

A bonus isn't a gift or an investment: it's paid to compensate for going above and beyond the call of duty. In this case, he did so by delivering a referral. He should be paid, plain and simple.

What if the employee had come back two years later to say "hey, guys. Remember that $10k you owed me?" I'm no lawyer, but I believe that a judge would consider that a form of forfeiture. Where is that line drawn?

I agree the tone seems to favor the employer, but tone doesn't make them right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promissory_estoppel

Technical recruiters typically got 1/4 of yearly salary as payment. $10K recruitment bonus is cheap.

Regardless of whether it's legal, it's totally unethical to behave that way.

- "Impeccable logic."

- ' At this point. You might as well just tell me "fuck you. you didn't sign a contract. boohoo." '

- ' I was starting to feel like they were determined to screw me.'

- 'No. I'm not proud of threatening, but I was pissed.'

- ' The rest of this chain of emails consists of me double checking if he understood what I was saying, and him giving me some more BS.'

- 'This is unethical practice. Period.'

- 'Somrat. Tim. Was this worth the 10k?'

It's a blog post, not a New York Times article. It has a pissed-off tone, understandable given the circumstances, but isn't venomous.

The part that really bothers me is that one of the reasons they give for denying him this is a recent engineering mistake. It just feels like this is all out of spite, and it's more of a childish move more than anything.

> After you lost our data and caused our entire company to scramble for 3 days, I am hesitant.

Extremely professional. They blew me away with that one.

Also, any company that allows a single person to 'lose their data and cause the entire company to scramble for 3 days' has some issues with separation of duties.

Obviously, yes: you should get the money before quitting. But Miso doesn't have a leg to stand on here unless they're hoping that pursuing the money isn't worth the poster's time (which might be a good bet, given that he didn't ask for the money originally).

1) Yes, a referral bonus is optional

2) It no longer becomes optional once you make the offer to your employees. At this point you have established intent; especially if it is provided in writing. You cannot take it back once the other party involved has upheld their end of the arrangement.

Just about everything in your first category is not an entitlement unless it's explicitly stated up front. If I get no promise of vacation days, then come back and demand them, I have no real standing. I can request them, but I'm not entitled to them.

Likewise, everything in your second category is an entitlement if it's stated up front. If they say, "We're giving you a $X bonus this year to anyone who does Y" and then they don't, they are completely in the wrong.