What do you think is bad about it? Should either party have negotiated harder?
I think the chick should have been able to negotiate the donation money to a lower amount like £20 or so to eliminate one of the conditions in sections 2-4. £40 is oddly specific and it's screaming please buy this for me. I think even a smaller contribution should earn her striking one of the rules.
Date: July 3rd, 2026 1:27 AM Author: Fluffy Concupiscible Brunch Fat Ankles
lmao it would be sooooo 180 if there was a negotiation process involved in this but I doubt it. I agree that she could've negotiated down the contribution. also, if I were her, for my contribution I would eliminate the "can you help me with this?" part and use it for everything else in the list. hugs kisses conversations etc.
I wonder if they could come up with any horse trading given the GTA VI contract. Since I'm not into video games I'd be willing to flip this for other relationship perks. In fact I would void the entirety of the GTA contract for 1 get out of going somewhere that doesn't really interest me free card. Or 1 I don't have to pretend to like one of your friends all night deal (not directly pertaining to you specifically just in general). I would use this as a barter chip for lots of better stuff.
I also think that enthusiastic participation in one holiday should be counted as credit towards not participating in another. Like I'd rather do a really big Christmas if I could get out of Halloween, hypothetically. I'm willing to barter on almost anything.
Date: July 3rd, 2026 1:35 AM Author: Fluffy Concupiscible Brunch Fat Ankles
180, v shrewd. I don't think I've ever been the type of person who wouldn't let a guy out of going to something that doesn't interest him for free in the first place UNLESS he already committed to it
Yeah you do seem pretty chill about that stuff. Your going out vs staying in ratio seemed pretty balanced to me. People who are too bent in one direction are concerning. If something doesn't pan out and it turns into a night at home, it's nice to have a partner who rolls with the punches and doesn't freak out about it or has massive amounts of FOMO. Similarly permanent shut-ins are weird too.
It's also concerning that even if she does get to eliminate one rule 2-4 that rule 1 can still be used as a catch-all or umbrella clause to supercede the rule buyback. Really should get some contract lawyers on this.
Date: July 3rd, 2026 2:29 AM Author: Salmon Contagious Chapel
Nah your read is off. It's more like eliminating one or more of 2-4 could almost entirely swallow Rule 1. e.g. he can "play as much as he wants," but with her standing in front of the TV talking shit when he dies. Drafting on Rule 1 is incredibly weak.
On the other hand, "stipulation" is potentially ambiguous. It could mean an entire numbered rule, or it it could mean a portion of a rule. For example, she can walk in front of the TV during missions, but not heists, and remain in compliance with Rule 2.
What if she promises to make an in kind contribution to his success such as vowing to drain his balls every couple of hours to help with concentration? That's got to be worth something in the negotiation.