Contracts serve vital purposes in business relationships: establishing clear expectations, allocating risks between parties, and providing a roadmap for when something goes wrong. Two crucial provisions are those related to termination rights and indemnification. Below, we will break down why these provisions matter, and we’ll explain how two different parties on opposite sides of a transaction might approach them.
The Importance of Termination Rights
Nobody goes into a business relationship expecting it to end badly, but innovative businesses plan for this possibility. That's where termination provisions come in. Termination rights are your emergency exit, especially those that allow for premature contract termination.
We typically push for flexible termination rights when representing buyers, particularly in supply agreements. This could include the ability to terminate for convenience with notice (commonly, 30 to 90 days), immediate termination when there are serious breaches, and termination if the supplier starts to miss deadlines or quality standards. Buyers also often want termination rights triggered by specific events, like if the supplier gets acquired by a competitor or files for bankruptcy.
But suppliers see this differently, and for good reason. Many suppliers make substantial investments to service their contracts. For instance, they might buy specialized equipment, hire additional employees, or pay to keep backup inventory for the buyer's benefit. From the supplier’s perspective, they need assurance that the contract will last long enough to recoup all these investments.
These opposing interests can play out in various ways. After all, if the buyer and supplier want opposite contract provisions, they will ultimately have to compromise on some terms. For instance, a manufacturer may wish to have broad termination rights in their supply agreement. Still, the supplier might push back hard, explaining that they would need to invest $2 million in new equipment to fulfill the contract. This might end in a compromise: the buyer gets their right to terminate for convenience but agrees to pay a termination fee during the first few years that decline as time goes on so that the supplier can recover its investment costs. There are often creative solutions like this that a reasonable attorney can devise to try to address both sides’ interests.
Indemnification is More Than Just Legal Jargon
If termination provisions are your emergency exit, indemnification clauses are your insurance policy. Indemnification rights determine who bears financial responsibility for something that goes wrong.
In a typical supply agreement, the buyer wants the supplier to indemnify them against various risks like product defects, intellectual property infringement claims, personal injury caused by the product, environmental issues, or breaches of the contract.
On the other hand, the supplier does not want to assume all these risks. The supplier often creates a product based on information provided by the buyer and, therefore, wants the buyer to be responsible if something goes wrong.
Furthermore, indemnification is not just about what is covered but also about how much is covered. Buyers may want indemnification to cover direct and consequential damages (like lost profits), attorney fees, and related costs. They might also want to require that the supplier maintains specific types and amounts of insurance coverage to back these obligations.
Suppliers, predictably, want to limit their exposure. They often want to cap their liability at the contract value, exclude consequential damages (which may usually be speculative), or limit the period the buyer can bring indemnification claims. They might also insist on exceptions, such as not being responsible for problems caused by improper product handling.
An Example of Negotiating Termination and Indemnification Provisions
Suppose our firm assists clients in negotiating a contract for specialized manufacturing equipment. In that case, they will want broad termination rights to quickly switch suppliers if the equipment does not perform as promised. They will also want comprehensive indemnification covering any production losses caused by equipment failures – there could be millions of dollars in lost production if the equipment fails.
The supplier may balk. They would be investing in expensive custom design work and tooling. They will want minimum purchase commitments and limit the buyer’s termination ability. On indemnification, they may insist on limiting their liability to the purchase price and excluding consequential damages from factory downtime.
After several rounds of negotiation, the parties could reach a middle ground: termination for convenience, but only after one year, giving the supplier time to recover initial investments; and capping indemnification at twice the purchase price, but including consequential damages for only the first six months of operation, when equipment failures are most likely. This balances the parties’ interests and provides for a fair solution. Depending on the parties’ bargaining power, their attorneys’ strategy, and other facts, the terms will likely differ from transaction to transaction.
Contract Negotiations Matter
Contract negotiations aren’t just legal exercises for attorneys to show off to their clients; they're about protecting business interests while building sustainable commercial relationships. Whether a company buys or sells, how termination and indemnification provisions are drafted can significantly impact costs, risk exposure, and liability.
Seemingly minor contract terms may become significant issues when a business relationship sours. That is why Dye Culik encourages our clients to think carefully about these provisions during contract negotiations – not after problems arise when it’s too late. No contract will eliminate all risk, but well-drafted termination and indemnification provisions can help manage it effectively.
If your business is negotiating essential business contracts, contact Dye Culik to see how we can protect your interests while maintaining viable long-term interests with those with whom you do business. The most useful legal representation is when it prevents problems from occurring, not when it addresses issues after they have already happened.
Comments