Comprehensive software reviews to make better IT decisions
When It Comes to Contract Clauses, Equal Is Not Always Equitable
Many contract reviewers and negotiators often assume that terms and conditions applicable to both parties must be identical or mirror each other. Nothing could be further from reality.
Too often, customers fall into the trap set for them by vendor contracts. Almost as often, customers include the same traps in their own contracts. What are these traps and how can you avoid them? Keep reading…
Termination notice is a common contract provision that can be used to illustrate the trap. Consider the following language pulled from a cloud services agreement (as part of our contract review service):
“Either the Customer or Vendor may terminate this Agreement only by giving written notice to the other that this Agreement will terminate on the next succeeding anniversary date. Such notice shall be given on or before ninety (90) days prior to the anniversary date.”
At first glance it may appear that this provision is fair – each party has to give the same amount of notice to terminate the agreement. However, since the parties are not in the same position and have different business needs, this provision is not equitable.
The vendor in this situation provides cloud services (although it could be any services or goods/products) to many customers. The loss of one customer will not impact the vendor’s viability, and there is no reason for a long termination notice provision to protect the vendor. Typically, vendors use termination provisions of 90 or 180 days to capitalize on customers not paying attention to the contract details to generate automatic renewals. Notice from the customer of 30 days should be sufficient in most cases, unless there are extenuating circumstances.
The customer in this situation is relying on the vendor for 100% of its cloud services of this type. Termination on short notice by the vendor would leave the customer scrambling to find a new vendor and transition to the new vendor. This may involve generating a request for proposal (RFP), conducting a thorough evaluation of potential replacement services, negotiating a new contract, converting data, and training employees/users on a new system. This can lead to additional costs and a loss of productivity for the customer and its personnel. Notice from the vendor of 30 days to terminate the contract will not provide adequate time for the customer to migrate. Ninety days may not be sufficient either!
- Ignore equality when evaluating termination provisions. Focus instead on whether the language is equitable for each party.
- Create a timeline for all of the ancillary tasks that must be accomplished before termination notice can be provided: RFP, negotiations, etc. This will help you set the appropriate termination notice period for the vendor to provide.
- Keep the customer’s termination notice period short (no more than 30 days) to preserve flexibility.
- Use a contract management system to track termination notice obligations.
- Want to learn about the contract lifecycle management market space? See Contract Lifecycle Management on SoftwareReviews.
When negotiating a termination provision, vendors will focus on the “equal” part of the equation and will need to be enlightened about using an “equitable” approach. Explain your position with illustrations that emphasize the impact on your organization and why an equitable termination provision is more fair than an equal one. In this situation, it’s not about the parties’ similarities; it’s about their differences.
Want to Know More?
When leasing IT equipment, the lessor (the company providing the equipment) has one main obligation. However, most leases overlook this critical aspect completely, exposing the lessee (the organization leasing the equipment) to unnecessary risk.
If you want to lease IT equipment, you have many options with regard to potential lessors (the leasing companies). In fact, some manufacturers lease equipment directly to their customers … or do they?
SortSpoke’s novel approach to machine learning answers a longstanding problem in financial services – how to efficiently extract critical data from inbound, unstructured documents at 100% data quality.
Check your contracts and you will find that the vast majority contain a force majeure clause. This provision states the conditions by which a party does not have to perform under the contract if it experiences an event beyond the party’s control.
Beware promises of cost savings and license optimization by acquiescing to SAP’s need for you to migrate from ECC to S/4HANA. Efficiencies in the areas of license optimization are usually offset by additional costs. Use a total cost of ownership (TCO) approach to evaluate the deal.
Extending a product’s desktop functionality and user experience to a mobile platform is not always a guaranteed success. Kronos is experiencing mixed reviews for its Kronos Workforce Mobile.
Coupa, a leading source-to-pay (S2P) provider, announces planned acquisition of Exari, a leading CLM provider, for $215M in cash as contract lifecycle management (CLM) consolidation continues.
HANA is SAP’s first serious entry into the database market segment. HANA is touted as being superior in performance when working with SAP applications vs. alternate database solutions, but objective benchmarks are lacking. Additionally, the adoption of S/4HANA necessitates adoption of the HANA DB as it is the only certified solution for S/4HANA ERP.
Current SAP ECC customers have a decision to make, as SAP has announced the end of ECC support effective 2025, in effect mandating a move to its next-generation ERP solution, S/4HANA.