Posts Tagged ‘practical’

“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!

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Circular Definitions

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

It seems as if the list of definitions at the beginning of contracts gets longer and longer, and often they are very useful. However, they must be carefully constructed.

I have come across the following example today of a ‘circular’ definition:

Definition: ‘Protocol’ means the protocol which the supplier must provide to the client in accordance with Clause 2

Clause 2: The supplier will provide the client with the Protocol

This definition creates a perpetual loop. As the supplier, you would read to clause 2 and see that you have to provide a Protocol – you would then look to the definition to see what it means, and find that it is the document you have to provide under clause 2!

As a lawyer who focuses on the practicalities of contractual agreements – and on making them as short as is reasonably possible – if I was re-drafting this, I would firstly decide whether a definition was required at all. If it was, I would probably re-word it along the lines of the following:

‘Protocol’ means a protocol in the form set out in Schedule 1, or in such alternative form as the parties shall agree in writing from time to time.

The first part of the wording gives the parties certainty as to what is meant, and the second part gives them the flexibility to make future changes.

Do you have definitions in your agreements which don’t make sense to you or go around in circles? If so, I’d be pleased to hear about them.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

new blog

Friday, July 17th, 2009

I’ve resisted it for a long time, but I’ve finally succumbed to having a blog!

Whilst solicitors do an excellent job of protecting their clients’ legal interests, I still come across too many examples of unnecessarily long-winded contracts, full of complex legal phraseology, and which do not reflect the practical needs of the parties.

Sometimes this type of contact is simply the result of sloppy drafting – the ‘here’s one I prepared earlier’ approach. However, mostly, it’s down to the fact that the solicitor does not know enough about the nature of the businesses and the transaction involved – and the client can’t afford the time it would take for him or her to find out – to be able to draft a better document. In either case the client, not being legally trained, won’t realise the limitations of the document – unless and until it is too late.

I’ve therefore decided to share some examples of poor drafting I come across and to look at how these can be remedied. (Confidentiality is obviously paramount though, so certain details will be changed where necessary.)

So, to start:

Last week I reviewed an 8 page (yes, 8 page!) confidentiality agreement for a client. It had been drafted by reputable and expensive lawyers, but they clearly did not understand the structure of the client’s organisation – and the client did not understand the complexity of the agreement.

This created 2 major problems:

1. Much of the information to be disclosed by my client would not have been protected because it belonged to organisations not covered by the agreement;

2. Disclosure of the other party’s confidential information to my client’s associated companies – which was always what was intended – would have put them in breach of the agreement.

In other words, the agreement was utterly and totally useless for the purpose for which it was intended. 8 pages of wasted rain forest!

Ideally, it would have been better to have had separate agreements with the associated companies, but – let’s get real – this was never going to happen. Accordingly, remedying the contract involved drafting tighter definitions, and providing rights for the associated companies to be able to rely upon the terms of the agreement under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

More examples to come. Watch this space!

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »