Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
No. I get to deal with corporate/finance tools. It is fun pointing out to them when they are wrong on points of law though. Sudden stop in the conversation, followed by something to the effect of "fine, we will give on that particular point then..."
|
Yeh, that drives me nuts a bit. I always admit being wrong and move along because I find dumping the ego and mind games makes a settlement deal move more quickly. A little humor goes a long way to breaking the ice and getting people to communicate more easily, which will get you home earlier, which is all I really give a shit about after three hours of negotiating anything.
The worst guy is the cat who'd rather win a debate than stay on track. If you prove him wrong on a point, he subtly changes the issue to a scenario where he would be right so he can save face. This guy is a deal breaker. And right behind him is the scared guy who is concerned about utterly implausible hypothetical situations. He's the guy saying "Yes, but what if we WERE to be sued under admiralty law by a woman in Kansas alleging our bed sheets caused anal warts?" This cat has to be removed from negotiations because he freaks out the other side and makes them gun shy.
The good guys to work with are the ones who deal only with the relevant contingencies and speak in simple terms. Unfortunately, those poor bastards are always saddled with some egomaniac or library jockey because, well, lets face it... getting things done quickly makes none of us any money.
