Posts Tagged ‘Cut and Paste’

Contracts, Kitchens and Communications

Monday, August 15th, 2011

What do drafting a contract and buying a fitted kitchen have in common?  More than you might imagine!

When you buy a fitted kitchen this is the process you usually go through:

The designer sketches out a plan of the space you have;

  1. You determine the overall ‘look’ you want, the important elements, and where you want those to be placed in the finished design;
  2. Some standard sized cupboards, drawers etc are fitted around the ‘must-have’ items – to the extent they fit in with the desired scheme;
  3. Bespoke units are then designed to fill in the gaps – to exactly match the other units in style, but built in non-standard shapes or sizes;
  4. The whole plan is reviewed and adjusted as necessary – to achieve both the functionality and the overall ‘look’ you want.  (Sometimes, this even means going back to point 2);
  5. When the kitchen is complete, you add the finishing touches – the pictures, flowers etc.

What you do not do, is buy a kitchen – a set number of certain sized units and appliances, – throw out the ones you don’t want, and then try to make the rest fit by chopping lumps off of some of them and joining others together with units you picked up at a car-boot sale and bits of plywood out of your garage!

But what if you did take that tack?  What would be the result?

You would find some areas of the kitchen would be quite unstable – a bit ‘rickety’ as my grandmother would have said – giving the impression that they might let you down when you really needed them.  In contrast, other units would no doubt be as solid as a rock – but it’s a fair bet that they would be the ones you most wished you’d left out or changed in some way.  Then, of course, there are the bits of plywood – I wonder what your visitors would think about those?

So what’s all this got to do with contracts?

Whilst no-one actually adopts the second approach to kitchens, many people do when it comes to contracts or terms and conditions: They obtain a template or ‘standard’ document (bought or ‘borrowed’,) and try to adapt it.  However, red-lining the bits you think you might not need (or don’t understand), shoe-horning in a few bits from other people’s documents here and there, and drafting the odd clause yourself, is never going to result in an effective and reliable document.

No two businesses are exactly alike.  So, cutting and pasting other documents to create your own involves significant risks.  In particular, there is a great danger that those clauses you most need to be able to rely on will be inadequate when applied to your particular situation.  Even worse, the ‘rock-solid’ ones could easily turn out to be just those you should have changed, because they actually work against you.  Also, the plywood – the bits you drafted yourself – generally stand out like a sore thumb and make the whole document (and you) look unprofessional.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the only alternative is some form of ‘bullet-proof’ document prepared at great expense.  Aside from anything else, ‘bullet proof’ is an expensive feature which is only useful when you likely to be shot at!

Producing your document from a blank sheet of paper, and building it up using a similar process to designing a fitted kitchen, is by far the surest way of achieving what you want.

Begin each contract by deciding what you want to achieve and determining the ‘must have’ items and where they need to go in the document.

The next step is to insert the standard clauses – but on their merits, rather than by just throwing the whole lot in en masse.

The penultimate phase of the document building process is then the most important – and this is the creation of the bespoke items needed to fill in the gaps and tailor the document to your own business needs – the aspect which template documents don’t adequately address.

This ‘bespoking’ process involves considering those situations which could result in misunderstandings, or which might otherwise result in you making less profit on your arrangement than planned – and addressing them.  Some of these issues will be similar to the situations faced by other people, but rarely do they involve the same ‘mix’, and so every situation should be considered on its merits. It is occasionally even the case that, whilst considering these possibilities, it becomes apparent that there is a better, safer way to structure the arrangement as a whole – and in those cases, as with the kitchen, this might involve some re-arranging and re-writing of the terms in order to achieve the commercial
objective.

Finally, there is what I think of as the ‘finishing touches’.

In the same way that a kitchen communicates something about you, your values and your lifestyle, many businesses work hard at creating a corporate style but then forget all about it when it comes to their contracts.  The effect is that ‘approachable’ can suddenly become ‘stroppy’ and ‘professional’ can become ‘sloppy’.  Using wording which is sufficiently precise to protect you, but still uses language which reflects your house style, however, will reinforces your branding .

So, the next time you need a contract – think kitchens.  A well-built kitchen will last you a long
time and help make your home a relaxing place to be.  Well drafted contracts do the same for your businesses.

Post to Twitter

“Is this contract OK?”

Tuesday, February 16th, 2010

This is a question which anyone who advises on contracts or terms and conditions is frequently asked. It seems quite reasonable at first – but then, what does ‘OK’ mean?

There are several things which may stand out as being ‘not OK’ or unacceptable in a contract – unreasonable liability provisions, restrictive covenants etc – but these can sometimes pale into (almost) insignificance, if we ask a different and wholly more important question: “Does this contract achieve what I want it to?”

In the last few days, I have looked at three separate contracts in relation to which the anser to the first question was ‘yes’, but the answer to the second question was a loud and definite ‘NO!’

In 2 of the 3 cases, whilst in totally different industries, the agreements effectively involved the clients setting up supply chain arrangements under short-term agreements. On the face of it, whilst there were some drafting issues, these could easily have been resolved. However, on digging deeper into what the clients actually believed they were signing up to, I found that in both cases, they were expecting long term, exclusive, product supply agreements – with a long term income stream to match. They were therefore quite shocked when I explained what their contracts actually meant and how limited their rights would be.

In the third case, I was being asked to review terms and conditions, and these were generally ‘OK’ in relation to the products which the client sells. However, the client’s greatest source of income comes from the provision of services – and these were not even mentioned.

As well as creating a huge amount of uncertaintly, the above examples highlight a common problem – which is the tendency to focus upon what a contract contains, rather than what is omitted. This is an especially easy trap for lawyers with no practical commerical experience, and business people with no legal experience, to fall into. It is also a serious side-effect of cut and paste drafting (as to which, see my earlier article: The Cut and Paste Trap.)

So, when reviewing or constructing a contract or a set of terms and conditions, what is the best approach?

Firstly, put any drafts on one side, and get a blank piece of paper!

Write down your own understanding of the arrangement (in English, not ‘legalese’), and try to think chronologically. Then ask how long the arrangement will last, and what each party hopes to get out of it. Finally, think about what the other party (or their successors!) could do which would make the arrangement less profitable or acceptable to you – for example, using your ideas to create a product of their own, or not providing you with the information you need to be able to provide your services on time.

Once you have a clear structure, it is much easier for your or your advisors to answer that all-important question: Does this contact achieve my objectives?’ – and to suggest amendments based upon ensuring that the opportunities for misunderstandings are minimised.

This approach results in a win-win situation and is the basis for building great business relationships – which is the objective of all of us in business!

Post to Twitter

The “Cut and Paste” Trap

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Have you ever been tempted to create an Agreement by cutting and pasting? Here’s what can happen….

I have recently been sent a contract for review, and what I discovered was a mish-mash of bits and pieces which had clearly been cobbled together from several different agreements.

The result? A potentially very costly mess!

Many of the terms used were not defined, and the (single) subject matter of the agreement (defined as ‘the Products’) was also referred to in various places as:

“the Work (as defined below)” (It wasn’t!)
“the Research Services”
“the Results”
“the Development”

and a couple of others which I can’t repeat here for fear of identifying the parties.

None of these terms were defined in the document or used in any consistent manner – in fact they seemed to be used interchangeably. In addition, there was reference in one definition to a Schedule which did not exist and was not referred to anywhere else in the contract.

So, does this matter, or is it just nitpicking?

Unfortunately, not only does it matter, but it can have serious implications. Here’s why:

The payment terms did not refer to the Products at all – despite several of the undefined terms being used in it, – and the warranty clauses did not link back to the Products either. Accordingly, the only possible ‘agreement’ between the parties would have been for the provision of Products, without the benefit of a warranty, for an undefined (and therefore, by law, a ‘reasonable’) payment.

However, in this case, the wording created such confusion and uncertainty that the whole agreement would almost certainly have been unenforceable.

This was a high value, technical contract, which ran to several pages. However, whatever the nature or value of your agreement, if you have taken the trouble to negotiate a deal, surely you want it to be enforceable?

If you have an agreement that you know (or suspect) has been created by cutting and pasting, and want to be sure that you are protected, please get it checked out – it may have been cheap to create, but it may also not be worth the paper it is printed on.

Post to Twitter