13 COSTLY MISTAKES WHEN NEGOTIATING CONTRACTS
By Fred Reilly, American Attorney and English Solicitor
The goal of the contract negotiation process is to produce a written document that addresses the relevant issues, terms, rights and obligations between two or more parties to the contract. Unfortunately, many negotiators make costly mistakes that ultimately come back to haunt them when a disagreement arises over how the contract should be interpreted or performed. This article will highlight thirteen common mistakes that could cost you a bundle.
- Failure to define your negotiation strategy in advance. How can you effectively negotiate when you haven’t yet defined the purpose of your negotiation? Prior to entering negotiations, establish your objectives, identify possible points of contention, consider the impact of any time constraints and determine potential deal breakers. It’s also highly advisable to review your knowledge of the other party, their negotiator (your adversary’s style, tendencies and hot buttons) and the context in which the negotiation will take place (i.e., market conditions that impact the deal).
- Failure to narrow the issues. After you’ve defined your negotiation strategy, address the issues that are crucial to your deal. During the negotiation, focus on resolving the key issues to your advantage or in a manner that you can live with after the deal has been struck. Be wary whenever your adversary focuses on minor or irrelevant points to the exclusion of the material issues. If it’s difficult to ever get to the substantive points, you’re in for a lengthy negotiation with an unacceptable outcome.
- Failure to walk away. Some negotiators are afraid to say “No.” One of the soundest negotiation strategies is to reach the conclusion that no deal is better than a bad deal. If your adversary realizes that you are willing to break off negotiations and walk away, he is far more likely to negotiate in good faith and work towards an acceptable deal.
- Failure to get a written document. Under most business circumstances, an oral contract will be enforceable. A notable exception is an oral real estate contract that violates the Statute of Frauds (which requires that certain contracts must be written). Although an oral contract may be enforceable, there’s always the evidentiary problem of how to prove the terms of the contract at a later date. One of the goals of your negotiation should be to generate a comprehensive written document that accurately describes the terms, rights and obligations of the parties in a manner that provides clarity about how the agreement will be interpreted and performed.
- Blind reliance on a “standard contract.” When it comes to legal contracts, do not place blind reliance on a “standard contract.” Although standard contracts can be very useful, they simply do not fit every situation. People frequently want to use a “standard contract” because they don’t want to pay an attorney to draft a contract. This often results in a “penny wise and pound-foolish” scenario. Many of the standard contracts that you can purchase at an office supply store for a nominal amount are simply so vague that little protection is afforded and clarity is non-existent. Depending on your specific situation and the issues at stake in your contract, hiring an attorney to draft the contract may be the most cost-effective choice possible. As an alternative strategy, consider modifying a standard contract with specific provisions that closely fit your situation.
- Failure to Properly Define the Parties. This mistake may seem elementary, but negotiators consistently get this one wrong. It is crucial to properly define the parties to a contract to ensure who will be liable for performing the obligations of the contract and liable in the event the contract is breached. You also need to ensure that the individual executing the contract has the appropriate authority to do so. For example, the President of a corporation will typically have authority to bind the corporation. Don’t be so certain that another officer within the corporation has the same authority to bind the corporation.
- Using Inconsistent Terms. Once you’ve defined the parties, refer to them in a consistent manner throughout the contract. Do not refer to a “Buyer” in one provision and later refer to a “Purchaser.” Although seldom fatal, this mistake creates confusion and undermines the credibility of the contract. In some cases, this mistake may negatively impact how the contract will be interpreted.
- The contract is not integrated. Whenever you cut and paste provisions from several model documents, there’s a danger that the new document will not be integrated. For example, references to subsequent provisions may be incorrect or the referenced provision may not even be present in the new document. No one wants a written contract with gaping holes.
- Failure to get clarity on key issues. Clarity is extremely important when negotiating and drafting contracts. For example, a contract that requires one party to make payments to another party should clearly set forth the conditions that must be met to trigger the payment obligation. If the triggers (conditions) in the written contract are drafted in an ambiguous or vague manner, the payor could assert that the payment obligation has not yet arisen. Thus, this situation could ultimately leave the payee with no choice but to initiate a lawsuit to enforce the terms of the contract.
- Failure to define those events that constitute breach of the contract. Like the triggers (conditions) mentioned above, it is important to define the specific events that constitute breach. Both parties need to establish the bright line between acceptable performance and unacceptable performance.
- Failure to include safety-valve provisions. Since the parties have recognized the possibility that a breach may occur, it is highly advisable to contemplate a contractual provision that provides for a “cooling off” period during which they can attempt to resolve the conflict. This type of provision tempers a hothead’s tendency to dig in their heels and immediately initiate legal proceedings.
- Failure to include a dispute resolution procedure. For many business transactions, mediation and arbitration represent viable dispute resolution procedures and should be considered when drafting the contract. It is imperative to define the procedure to be followed and especially how the mediator(s)/arbitrator(s) will be selected.
- Failure to designate the applicable law and choice of forum. This common mistake is often simply overlooked. The applicable law governing the contract should be clearly stated. The choice of forum provision establishes the location where disputes will be adjudicated. Obviously, hostile and inconvenient forums should be avoided.
Avoiding these common mistakes will not eliminate all potential problems associated with a contract, but will substantially diminish the likelihood of a later dispute over interpretation or performance.
DISCLAIMER: This article and its content are intended to provide general information on legal topics and shall not serve as a solicitation for services in any jurisdiction where prohibited by law. This article is not, nor is it intended to be used as a substitute for legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice concerning your own situation. Sending an email to the owner of this website, and receiving any response thereto, does not, in and of itself, create an attorney-client relationship.
© Copyright 2007 by Fred Reilly. All rights reserved.
Leave a comment