This shows the problems that can be caused when an overlooked issue is dropped into a negotiation late in the day. Both parties may have invested emotionally in

This shows the problems that can be caused when an overlooked issue is dropped into a negotiation late in the day. Both parties may have invested emotionally into the negotiation and consider they have conceded on a range of issues already and so are extremely hesitant to concede again. As mentioned, the rational way to approach would be to assess the potential profitability of the deal from both sides, and come to an agreement on that basis. Of course, negotiations do not take place in a vacuum and rational solutions to an impasse are not always taken up (partly because of the above emotional investment and the fact that you are negotiating with humans, not robots). It's not as simple as saying this constituted a failure to act in the best interests of the company. Negotiation shouldn't solely involve a cold, hard calculation of the costs and revenue that may stem from a specific deal because there are other factors to take into account: goodwill, chance of repeat business, the general relationship with the other party. Certainly I've felt that negotiators on the other side from me have deliberately looked to dig in their heels because they know that one result could be that the other side will simply concede out of frustration and a desire just to get the damn contract signed. The downside to that approach is that leaving one side frustrated at the outset of an agreement is not always a good recipe for a solid working relationship! In HootSuite's case, conceding is sometimes a necessary evil to get the deal done. In my shoes, I would say getting the other side to agree to a steak dinner is a nice way to deflate any perceived frustration. Expenses are frequently covered off in agreements and this would be absolutely fine under UK bribery laws at least.