3 ms·

When company looks at you funny for doing this: Run the other way!

gesman 8y ago
In my experience I never had a single case of objection to that (correcting one-sides clauses). Few iterations back and forth - yes, but it's clearly fair.
- dboreham 8y ago
  Same experience. In fact I have never signed a contract that wasn't modified in some way. Actually there was one exception: a very large Pacific Northwest based company. Their standard consulting agreement was very fair, I imagined due to a desire to reduce "legal support costs" that would arise from prospective vendors constantly requesting the same set of edits. Probably also for fear of future litigation.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    > Their standard consulting agreement was very fair, I imagined due to a desire to reduce "legal support costs" that would arise from prospective vendors constantly requesting the same set of edits. That was our motivation at BindView (now part of Symantec) for developing what many customers' lawyers said was the greatest vendor contract they'd ever seen: We didn't want to spend our time repeatedly negotiating the same T&C changes like gerbils in a wheel. This was especially true as the game clock was running down at the end of the fiscal-reporting quarter. [0] [0] https://www.oncontracts.com/balanced-contract-forms/ https://www.oncontracts.com/balanced-contract-forms/
- antoinevg 8y ago
  I have found major variation depending on geography. In the USA it's almost expected that you should request changes and trust levels may go down if you don't. In many parts of Europe the client's response is often that they are well within their rights to "protect" themselves through one-sided clauses. In Africa you just get the funny look.
  - gesman 8y ago
    Not sure about funny looks in Africa, but I'm European myself. In Europe contracts tends to be more on a "fair" side of equation (less opportunistic sneaky clauses but more in-your-face bummers). In North America the initial paperwork scale quality greatly depends on absurdity levels of lawyers at the other side (lawsuit-prone enterprises, large corps with unlimited budgets "just because they can" and heavily regulated industries claiming "this is industry-standard contract" BS). In my past - after prolonged, fruitless battle with IBM lawyers - I accepted all [ridiculous] IBM terms and was rewarded with 5 yrs of doing well-paid, WFH, interesting, creative, cool stuff. So there is no hard and fast rules - go with your gut sometimes is a best advice.

In my experience I never had a single case of objection to that (correcting one-sides clauses). Few iterations back and forth - yes, but it's clearly fair.

dboreham 8y ago
Same experience. In fact I have never signed a contract that wasn't modified in some way. Actually there was one exception: a very large Pacific Northwest based company. Their standard consulting agreement was very fair, I imagined due to a desire to reduce "legal support costs" that would arise from prospective vendors constantly requesting the same set of edits. Probably also for fear of future litigation.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  > Their standard consulting agreement was very fair, I imagined due to a desire to reduce "legal support costs" that would arise from prospective vendors constantly requesting the same set of edits. That was our motivation at BindView (now part of Symantec) for developing what many customers' lawyers said was the greatest vendor contract they'd ever seen: We didn't want to spend our time repeatedly negotiating the same T&C changes like gerbils in a wheel. This was especially true as the game clock was running down at the end of the fiscal-reporting quarter. [0] [0] https://www.oncontracts.com/balanced-contract-forms/ https://www.oncontracts.com/balanced-contract-forms/
antoinevg 8y ago
I have found major variation depending on geography. In the USA it's almost expected that you should request changes and trust levels may go down if you don't. In many parts of Europe the client's response is often that they are well within their rights to "protect" themselves through one-sided clauses. In Africa you just get the funny look.
- gesman 8y ago
  Not sure about funny looks in Africa, but I'm European myself. In Europe contracts tends to be more on a "fair" side of equation (less opportunistic sneaky clauses but more in-your-face bummers). In North America the initial paperwork scale quality greatly depends on absurdity levels of lawyers at the other side (lawsuit-prone enterprises, large corps with unlimited budgets "just because they can" and heavily regulated industries claiming "this is industry-standard contract" BS). In my past - after prolonged, fruitless battle with IBM lawyers - I accepted all [ridiculous] IBM terms and was rewarded with 5 yrs of doing well-paid, WFH, interesting, creative, cool stuff. So there is no hard and fast rules - go with your gut sometimes is a best advice.