[patrickyeon]

- Because they didn't read that part so closely.

- Because they read it closely but didn't interpret it correctly.

- Because they brought it up and their counterpart said "don't worry, that's boilerplate and we've never actually used that clause".

- Because the alternative was signing a contract that had no relocation/hiring bonus.

- Because they needed a job, and that's what was there.

- Because they really really needed a job to keep health insurance or their visa, and they had no leverage.

- Because they had leverage, but were too inexperienced in negotiations to realize it.

- Because they had leverage, but were not comfortable using it, and were taken advantage of.

There's lots of reasons, of varying quality, that someone may do something that seems ridiculous to you. Why are you implying that the (hypothetical) losing party here is the one who's done something wrong?

[john_moscow]

All I am saying is that in a relatively safe first world countries in 2019 there are not that many ways to screw up your life big time. But signing a contract that lets someone take take more than your net worth might be based on a risk that they control and you don't, is certainly one of them.

I have actually been in a somewhat similar situation myself and I had spent hours googling all the legalese and running the "worst case" simulations in my head before signing it. And my understanding of possible paths and their consequences was very helpful later when the corporate politics unfolded the wrong way and it helped me exit the situation with a net plus.