How do you proceed when faced with a long-winded, very one-sided contract presented to you by a potential customer or supplier? And what does the contract – and your response – say about your respective attitudes to business?

Contracts are often called Agreements – and for good reason: The whole basis of a contract is that it represents the agreement which has been reached between the parties. So the first question to spring to mind might be – why is the other party starting out upon their relationship with me by behaving like a bully, and does this behaviour really bode well for a successful working relationship? In contrast, the second question might be ‘What does accepting these terms say about how I value my contribution to this arrangement?’

In reality, (leaving aside the minority who are greedily looking for short-term gain over long-term relationships,) most people neither want nor actually understand the complexities of ‘clever’ contracts. So, this type of problem is often caused by the advisers, some of whom engage in ‘contractual one-upmanship’ – who can impose the most unreasonable clauses – either as part of an ego trip, or because it’s what they feel their clients want.

In these situations, what tends to happen is that the parties lose patience with the negotiation process. This leads to one of two outcomes: Either the whole deal falls through, or the parties start working together outside of the agreement which is being negotiated – ie, under their own unwritten rules.

Good contracts lead to profitable long-term relationships because they accurately record the details of the agreement which the parties have reached in a way both parties understand – preventing the disputes which result from a failure to properly manage expectations, and which end up destroying reputations. However, to create a good contract, you need to start from a position of trust and reasonableness.

So, in the situation described above, a good start would be to arrange a round-table discussion rather than batting emails backwards and forwards. Explain that you don’t want to ‘play games’, and that you simply want to achieve a contract which is fair and reasonable, and which reflects what BOTH parties actually want. Having the other party present for this helps them to understand your point of view (something which won’t be passed on if it’s their adviser causing the problem), and having your own adviser present means that there’s no opportunity for the other adviser to blind you with (legal) science.

Of course, being ‘fair and reasonable’ doesn’t mean giving all your rights away. It simply means understanding that there will be risks to both parties in any potential arrangement and that the best course of action is to balance those risks with the benefits to be derived under that arrangement. Accordingly, knowing your risks – and to what extent you are prepared to accept them – as well as thinking the position through from the other party’s perspective, will be good preparation for your negotiation.

By working together collaboratively in this way, all parties achieve the ideal solution – a win:win situation leading to long-term trust and a reduced likelihood of disputes. The whole process is also much faster and less expensive than playing ‘contractual one-upmanship’. So, if it’s your contracts that are causing the problems, now might be a good time to re-assess what they are saying about your business.