[saurik]

I don't even think we have enough context to learn that lesson. I can easily see the email from the CEO having been an apology/prayer (with the understanding that it migh not have worked out), followed by not just a stern "no, seriously" but instead including a threat of legal action.

People throw these threats into all kinds I thins, whether it be something as simple as a request for a refund on a $1 purchase or a thousand dollar consulting bill. People even seem to believe that it helps: that it provides motivation to be heard.

On my end, however, the second there is a threat is the moment I cannot help you any more: I refer you to legal. If you threaten legal action, it is no longer a business decision, it is a legal one. Likewise, of I threaten legal action, it is because I've already given up on business and have already talked to a lawyer, and actually want to talk to yours.

Here, we just don't know. We have some sentences taken out of context that are designed to make this designer seem reasonable. ...but... that "I figured :)" from the CEO is, to me, really telling: it tells me that this person probably thought the designer was "over the top" in their reaction and of course would try to escalate with lynch mob...

So, in that possible context: does "talk to finance help"? If it does, I feel like it would send the wrong message: that you really are now in legal land, not in finance or business land. Again, though: just "possible context", as we don't have the entire email exchange (leading me to be stuck in "people who have reacted like this at me had these associated behaviors" world).

[tptacek]

Yes. It helps. You cannot whip up a storm of angry Redditors when you are told by a client "send this invoice to finance@", because that is where invoices normally go.

From what I've seen so far, this client did two things wrong:

* They scoffed at the invoice

* They told the vendor to send the invoice to legal@

If the client had declined to do EITHER of those things --- not both, just not do one of them --- there wouldn't be even half as much drama as there is now. "Send it to legal@" was just a dumb move.

[saurik]

No: all we have is that they said "please send your claim to our legal team: [e-mail]": key word being "claim". I can easily see the e-mail in the middle from the contractor being one of those massive supposedly-motivating "I will sue you if you don't do what I want, as I believe you did X and Y and Z illegally" e-mails.

If so, it wouldn't make sense to say "send your invoice to finance": the correct response is "send your claim to legal". I really don't think we can claim anyone in this situation can learn any lessons without the complete and full e-mail context, as I honestly have dealt with enough irritating people to not put even a single iota of trust that the contractor is explaining even the sequence of events in a way that isn't designed to make them seem like they didn't send a screaming pile of pain in their side of the conversation.