3 ms·

I've never had a problem crossing stuff out. This was an email I sent to a company I wound up working for after we (my lawyer and I) changed their 9 page "stan

I've never had a problem crossing stuff out. This was an email I sent to a company I wound up working for after we (my lawyer and I) changed their 9 page "standard contract": --------------- Hi guys, Who signs these “standard contracts”? 4.2. In the event the Provider is in breach of any of the representations or warranties set forth in Section 4.1 above, in addition to any other remedies ZZZ may have under this Agreement, ZZZ, at its sole option and without incurring any liability, may: (d) Recover any and all actual, incidental and consequential damages to ZZZ, including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs; Nice try but yeah, no. ;-) If I can strike out the unreasonable parts we can probably come to some agreement. -Chris ---------------------- In case you didn't read it, it was this is what was outrageous: including but not limited to actual or estimated loss of profits and sales and costs to cover, attorney’s fees and costs

codingdave 6y ago
IANAL, but...they have those rights anyway, by suing you. Putting it in a contract isn't changing reality, it is just saying "water is wet". If they tried to collect on it without a lawsuit, you'd surely file one to argue that you didn't breach agreements or were not the direct cause of loss. So at the end of the day, this is just saying "Conflicts may end up in court.", which is the status quo with or without a contract. Not that I disagree with crossing it out - that is a good call. It just isn't as glaring of an evil clause as it might appear. This is why I would recommend OP pay for an hour of a lawyers time to read over the contract and give some advice. Because what sounds scary is often meaningless and what sounds benign is often actually fairly unreasonable. If you aren't experienced reading contracts, it is worth the cost to get some help.
- valenterry 6y ago
  You are probably right. But then the question is: why do they write it into the contract from the beginning. One reason might be to have the non-legal but moral upperhand: "Hey, don't be angry - you agreed to these conditions when you signed the contract." Even if they don't matter in court, I think asking to strike these parts is still good idea. And be it just to see how they react to your suggestion.
  - codingdave 6y ago
    The reason stuff like that ends up in contracts is because attorneys know that most people are afraid of legal conflict, and they can get people to cave in to demands just to avoid a lawsuit. It is typical to put clauses into standard contracts that would never hold up in court, but that people will follow anyway out of fear. I believe that everyone in the corporate world, or even wider, should go through a "Law 101" course just to learn the basics of contract law and how our legal system works, so people can recognize such behaviors.
chrisbennet 6y ago
What I really objected to, was that I would be liable for estimated loss of profits. I can usually handle 1 or 2 page contracts but when I see something like this, "What other thing are in here." and I give it to my lawyer.
2rsf 6y ago
IANAL but in some places (or at least in Israel) there's a subtle difference between signing a standard contract and asking for changes when it gets to court. It doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for changes but at least give it another thought and consult a lawyer

codingdave 6y ago

IANAL, but...they have those rights anyway, by suing you. Putting it in a contract isn't changing reality, it is just saying "water is wet". If they tried to collect on it without a lawsuit, you'd surely file one to argue that you didn't breach agreements or were not the direct cause of loss. So at the end of the day, this is just saying "Conflicts may end up in court.", which is the status quo with or without a contract. Not that I disagree with crossing it out - that is a good call. It just isn't as glaring of an evil clause as it might appear. This is why I would recommend OP pay for an hour of a lawyers time to read over the contract and give some advice. Because what sounds scary is often meaningless and what sounds benign is often actually fairly unreasonable. If you aren't experienced reading contracts, it is worth the cost to get some help.

valenterry 6y ago
You are probably right. But then the question is: why do they write it into the contract from the beginning. One reason might be to have the non-legal but moral upperhand: "Hey, don't be angry - you agreed to these conditions when you signed the contract." Even if they don't matter in court, I think asking to strike these parts is still good idea. And be it just to see how they react to your suggestion.
- codingdave 6y ago
  The reason stuff like that ends up in contracts is because attorneys know that most people are afraid of legal conflict, and they can get people to cave in to demands just to avoid a lawsuit. It is typical to put clauses into standard contracts that would never hold up in court, but that people will follow anyway out of fear. I believe that everyone in the corporate world, or even wider, should go through a "Law 101" course just to learn the basics of contract law and how our legal system works, so people can recognize such behaviors.

chrisbennet 6y ago

What I really objected to, was that I would be liable for estimated loss of profits. I can usually handle 1 or 2 page contracts but when I see something like this, "What other thing are in here." and I give it to my lawyer.

2rsf 6y ago

IANAL but in some places (or at least in Israel) there's a subtle difference between signing a standard contract and asking for changes when it gets to court. It doesn't mean you shouldn't ask for changes but at least give it another thought and consult a lawyer