Sure, those negotiations would happen before significant money or services are exchanged. And, presumably, we wouldn't enter into an agreement unless we were mutually satisfied. But arbitrarily deciding to withhold payment for your services after the fact, pending an audit of your workplace practices, for instance, would probably land me on the wrong end of an adverse action from you. And deservedly so.

Regarding the label you used: what makes it absurd is the notion that Patrick would be motivated by an urge to justify the actions of a 3rd party business he's barely engaged with.

I didn't (and wouldn't) claim that. I do however think that his well-reasoned, but irrelevant argument for why Paypal feels justified in holding $42,000 of Mailpile's money does indeed serve as apologism in the thread, motivations aside. If you think I'm arguing that Patrick is some shill for PayPal, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Here it pains me to cite Paul Graham's "Things You Can't Say" on the semiotic significance of deploying labels to make arguments.

And it's painful to watch. The argument hardly relies on this supposed labeling and I'd be surprised if you actually believe that. At this point you've already done more labeling, imputing of motives, and purely rhetorical arguing than you seem to think I have.