Skip to main content

The BUSKLAW February Newsletter: Are Your "Terms and Conditions" Sticky?


Please indulge me. Pretend that these flies are your customers and suppliers. Further pretend that this flypaper is your standard contract that you have posted on your website, no doubt to save time - and trees. 

Your standard contract is essential to protecting your company, right? It probably contains an indemnity, warranty or warranty disclaimer, a liability limitation, a remote damages exclusion, and a governing law provision. But what it doesn't contain is the business terms of your deals. Those are neatly packaged in a one-page document that you can quickly create and email to your suppliers (as a PO) or to your customers (as a sales acknowledgment). Ah, you are amazed by this beautiful simplicity of managing your customers and suppliers! You are enthralled by this well-oiled business process! 

Not so fast. Are the flies really stuck to the flypaper? Are you certain that your standard contract is legally binding on your customers and suppliers? 

Here's the fly in the ointment. Your customers and suppliers likely have their own contracts that they want to control the deal instead of your contracts. And their terms and conditions will probably conflict with yours - to your detriment if a dispute ever arises. 

Now you may say, "the likelihood of a big dispute with our customers and suppliers is small." If you extend that logic, then feel free to cancel your company's commercial general liability insurance because the odds are you'll never need it. Even one commercial dispute can adversely impact your company's bottom line, hurt your reputation, and cause other mischiefs in the workplace. No, you need to take steps to make sure (to the extent you can) that your contract will prevail over any other contract presented by your customer or supplier. What steps should you take to win this battle of the forms?

First, don't rely on non-negotiated form contracts for larger deals where your company has substantial liability exposure if things go awry. You need to specially negotiate these deals - both the legal and business terms - with competent legal counsel working closely with your senior management team. The result should be a comprehensive, mutually signed and dated contract rather than hyperlinks to your website agreement. 

Second, if you must rely on website-posted agreements, consider including an "I ACCEPT" button at the end of each form and logging the date and time of your customer's or supplier's acceptance that will be permanently retained in a secure, backed-up database. And implement a business rule that you don't issue a PO or sales acknowledgment unless your agreements are expressly accepted. 

Third, if you don't want to log your customer's or supplier's acceptance, make sure that your business paper (those one-page POs or sales acknowledgments that contain business provisions) properly incorporate the legal stuff posted on your website. Don't say something like: "See additional terms and conditions posted at [URL]." Rather, say "Additional terms and conditions posted at [URL] are incorporated by reference as if they were entirely stated herein." And make this statement stand out by using bold text and a larger font than the surrounding text. (But don't put the statement in CAPS.) 

Fourth, make sure that your website-posted contracts contain the correct language to knock out your supplier's or customer's conflicting legal terms. This language can take several forms, and you'll excuse me if I don't print a sample here for fear that you will use it incorrectly. (Call me instead.)

Losing the battle of the forms can be costly as discussed in a previous post. Why not do what you can to make your agreements prevail? To make 'em stick? 
  ____________________________________

If you find this post worthwhile, please consider sharing it with your colleagues. The link to this blog is www.busklaw.blogspot.com and my website is www.busklaw.com. And my email address is busklaw@charter.net. Thanks! 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: The Foolhardy Practice of Using Faux Terms of Art in Your Contracts

  Most lawyers draft contracts. That's what lawyers do. And they use perceived terms of art ("TOAs") because they want to be paragons of contract-drafting precision. But here is where the canker gnaws:  the words that lawyers insert in their contracts as TOAs are actually not, potentially causing problems in clarity and interpretation. And as I've said time and again, these problems lead to disputes, and disputes lead to litigation, which is always time-consuming and expensive for the parties involved.  Let's first define TOAs in the legal context. According to Professor Bryan Garner in his Dictionary of Legal Usage , TOAs have specific, precise meanings that are "locked tight" and based on legal precedent. But then there are the faux TOAs, "whose meanings are often unhinged." Expert contract drafters, Garner says, know that clear, simple drafting is less subject to misinterpretation than using TOAs that are nothing more than "mere jargon....

The BUSKLAW Halloween 2022 Post: Stephen King's Asides on Poor Writing in Fairy Tale

  Having just read  Stephen King's Fairy Tale in time for Halloween, it's appropriate to examine his asides on poor writing included in the book. (BTW, Fairy Tale is a good read with King's typical well-executed character development, plot, and a great finish to the story. But you have like the whole Grimm fairy tale genre before you read his take on it.)  Stephen King doesn't tolerate anything less than crisp prose. When the story's hero, Charlie Reade, tries to read a book about the origins of fantasy and its place in the world matrix ("what a mouthful"), he can only scan it because: It was everything I hated about what I thought of as "hoity-toity" academic writing, full of five-dollar words and tortured syntax. Maybe that's intellectual laziness on my part, but maybe not. Later on, Charlie tries to focus on a particular chapter in the "origins of fantasy" book about the story of Jack and the Beanstalk but is put off by "t...

The BUSKLAW May Newsletter: Another Trump NDA Bites the Dust!

  In my August 2020 newsletter, we discussed lessons from the New York Supreme Court's rejection of the Trump family NDA. Drafting lesson #1 is the need to specifically describe the information covered by the NDA rather than vague references.  Unfortunately for Trump, this lesson wasn't learned, as evidenced by a recent New York U.S. District Court decision in the case of  J essica Denson v Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.   Plaintiff Denson was employed as a national phone bank administrator for the 2016 Trump campaign. Before she was hired, she signed the standard Trump employment contract containing broad non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions. Confidential Information was defined as: ...all information (whether or not embodied in any media) of a private, proprietary or confidential nature or that Mr. Trump insists remain private or confidential, including, but not limited to, any information with respect to the personal life, political affairs, and/o...