They don't actually sign anything. They just need to have any positive response via email followed by a paid invoice, that's enough for the client to be in cont

They don't actually sign anything. They just need to have any positive response via email followed by a paid invoice, that's enough for the client to be in contract with me should we ever end up in court. Given that I invoice on a weekly basis, there's not much risk on my side. The only risk is that I ruin their business by badly implementing their supply chain or similar but I have liability insurance to cover this. Everything I do is on a time and materials basis and the client get an invoice every week so there's no real way for them to claim I haven't delivered scope etc. I also make the client test everything that I deliver and tell me, via email, that they have accepted it. I do understand the usefulness of a contract but my many years at Accenture showed me that contracts don't stop you from having to go to court and spend a lot to defend yourself. I am not against signing a contract with a client, it just makes it harder to sell and it locks me into terms and conditions. No contract gives everyone a lot of flexibility. Alan Weiss takes the same approach. If I were to enter in to a large piece of fixed scope work with an enterprise client, I would likely get my lawyer to put together a master services agreement though.