Posts Tagged ‘effectiveness’

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

Contract Risk Assessment

Thursday, October 14th, 2010

- or Bridging the Gap Between Commerce and Contracts (with pragmatism and common sense.)

Contracts don’t have to be measured in inches – it’s a long time since lawyers were paid by the word. Neither do they have to be some academic foray into the distant realms of possibility. On the other hand, they do have to afford you the protection you need when things go wrong.

We are all used to the concept of risk analysis as it pops up in most areas of our life, – from Councils taking the conkers off trees in case someone throws a stick up and it falls and injures a passer-by (I didn’t make that up!), to assessing the risk that our computers will send all our personal data across the ether to a student hacker. Why then, do we so often fail to ‘risk-assess’ our contractual arrangements?

It often seems as if the contractual process is, for many organisations, a purely administrative one: Agree deal, find document that looks as if it might fit the bill, change the names and products, sign it and file it. Note that there was no actual consideration of the relevance of the document in that process – no assessment of the risks involved in this particular transaction and how they might differ from the previous one.

For example, I’ve come across cases where no account was taken of the different lead times or specialist safety requirements and storage conditions in agreements for the manufacture of products – both of which could have had significant cost (and liability) implications. Similarly, when taking on a new customer, it may be wise to look for a quicker get-out clause than you would use in a contract with an established customer, or to spell out what you will (and will not) do for them in greater detail if they have less experience of dealing with organisations like yours.

The corollary to the above is an agreement of mine which has recently been reviewed by a firm of solicitors acting for one of the parties. Their suggestion that we ought to include a clause making it clear that all payments would be made in Sterling made me smile – the agreement is between two East Midlands (UK) organisations with no international connections and involves relatively small sums of money. What did I say about lawyers being paid by the word?!

My advice to anyone negotiating or drafting contracts would be to carry out a risk assessment, but be pragmatic. Look at:

  • What can go wrong?
  • What is the probability that it will go wrong?
  • What are the implications of it going wrong in terms of time, money and reputation?
  • Is the risk one you are prepared to live with, or should it be covered by the contract?

No contract can protect you against all possible risks, and if a risk is slight and the implications minor, you may be prepared to accept that for the sake of the brevity of the document. However, if the probability of the ‘event’ is high and/or the implications are severe, it ought to be covered.

How each identified risk which you want to have covered will actually be dealt with in the contract is then a matter for a closer look at the risk analysis. Simply highlighting the matter may be enough for a highly probable – low risk event, whereas a more detailed and ‘technical’ clause will be appropriate for a high-risk event.

The overall aim should always be to make the length and complexity of the contract appropriate to the risks you face. If it needs to be 20 pages long, fine. But if it only needs to be 2 pages long – save the trees, and your money!

Don’t risk it.  Always create your contracts with clarity.

Post to Twitter

The Devil in the Detail

Monday, August 10th, 2009

I recently reviewed an agreement which had been professionaly drafted for my clients – but which they did not understand.

It contained long and complex clauses upon matters which have routinely been the subject of academic debate in the courts. In some cases these clauses can be critical, and a well drafted clause can mean the difference between survival and financial ruin for a business when an agreement turns sour. In this agreement, for example, as in many, the right to terminate if the other party suffered any one of a number of financial problems – including, I suspect, losing his change down the back of the sofa, – was the subject of several paragraphs of prose.

However, given that my client’s only real obligation was to pay for work completed to its satisfaction, I personally did not feel that such a detailed clause was appropriate. What was more worrying, however, was that there were several practical issues of much more signifcance to the client which had not received such detailed attention.

For example, my client required regular progress reports and had the right to terminate the agreement if adequate progress against an agreed schedule was not being maintained. This obligation was critical to my client, – who needed to be able to dump and replace the contractor if appropriate. Critical in a practical sense, but clearly not the type of clause which regularly excercises the learned minds of the judiciary!

The agreement defined ‘Report Dates’ as the first day of each calendar quarter – so far so good – but then merely required the other party to produce reports ‘in accordance with the Report Dates’. What did this mean? Neither my client (nor, it turned out, the other party,) fully understood how to interpret this clause, which meant it was already doomed as a useful weapon in the contractual armoury.

A report, scribbled on the back of an envelope, prepared on 10th April for the period from 1st January up to 31st March, but not delivered to the client until 31st May would fulfil the obligation – but was certainly not what my client needed. Accordingly, the clause was ‘legal’ but practically ineffective. (Lawyers will know that there would be an implied clause to the effect that the report had to be delivered within a reasonable time – but the clients didn’t know that, and anyway, why place them in a situation of having to argue about what was reasonable?)

The clause was changed to make it clear that the reports would cover the activities of the quarter ending on the relevant Report Date, would be in such format as my client reasonably required, and would be delivered within 7 days of the end of the quarter in question.

Post to Twitter