Adversarial Contract Review

Below is a clause‑by‑clause risk analysis of the agreement you posted, followed by concrete, contractor‑friendly rewrite suggestions and the legal rationale behind each change. The goal is to bring the contract into a more balanced, commercially reasonable state while preserving the client’s legitimate interests.

---

1. QUICK‑LOOK SUMMARY

Clause	Why it is risky for the Contractor	What to change (sample language)	Legal rationale
1. Scope	“Client may modify scope at any time without additional compensation.” Gives client unilateral power to add work for free.	Add “reasonable” limitation and a requirement for a written change order that may adjust fees or schedule.	Courts enforce “unconscionable” or “unreasonable” unilateral modifications; a change‑order process is standard in services contracts.
2. Payment	90‑day payment terms + “Client may withhold payment if deliverables are unsatisfactory at Client’s sole discretion.” This gives client a vague, discretionary right to refuse payment and a very long cash‑flow period.	Reduce net terms to 30 days (or 45 days) and require any “unsatisfactory” determination to be based on objective criteria, with a cure period (e.g., 10 business days) before withholding.	Most jurisdictions consider “sole discretion” hold‑back clauses unenforceable as they violate the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
3. IP	All work product, including pre‑existing Contractor IP, becomes client’s exclusive property “in perpetuity.” This strips the contractor of any right to reuse its own tools, libraries, or methodology.	Carve out “Background IP” (pre‑existing IP) and grant client a non‑exclusive, royalty‑free, worldwide, perpetual license to use the background IP only as incorporated in the deliverables.	Many jurisdictions (e.g., US, Canada, EU) recognize the contractor’s right to retain ownership of pre‑existing IP; a license‑back is the norm.
4. Non‑Compete	24‑month blanket ban on providing similar services to any company in the same industry. Likely overbroad, unreasonable in duration and geographic scope, and may be unenforceable.	Limit to a 12‑month period, geographically reasonable (e.g., within 50 miles of client’s principal place of business or where client operates), and only to direct competitors with whom Contractor worked on the same project.	Non‑compete clauses are subject to reasonableness test (duration, geography, scope). Overbroad restraints are often void as a matter of public policy.
5. Termination	Client can terminate “at any time without notice”; Contractor must give 60‑day notice to leave, and must deliver work “without additional compensation.”	Insert mutual termination rights with reasonable notice (e.g., 30 days). If client terminates for convenience, require pro‑rata payment for work performed and reasonable wind‑down costs.	Unilateral termination without compensation is generally enforceable but may be deemed “unconscionable” when combined with lack of payment for work already performed.
6. Liability	Contractor assumes unlimited liability for bugs, security vulnerabilities, and consequential damages. This exposure can be financially ruinous.	Add a liability cap (e.g., amount equal to total fees paid in the preceding 12 months) and carve out gross negligence or willful misconduct as the only uncapped exceptions.	Most jurisdictions allow parties to cap liability for commercial contracts, provided the cap is not unconscionable and is not applied to intentional wrongdoing.
7. Indemnification	Contractor must indemnify client for all claims arising from contractor’s work, “regardless of fault.” This is overly broad.	Limit indemnity to third‑party claims arising from Contractor’s breach of warranty, negligence, or willful misconduct. Require the client to give prompt notice and control the defense.	Indemnity clauses that impose “strict” liability without fault are often struck down as contrary to the principle of fault‑based liability.
8. Confidentiality	5‑year term is reasonable, but the clause also bars disclosure of the agreement terms themselves, which could impede the contractor’s ability to seek financing or legal advice.	Carve out a “permitted disclosure” exception: Contractor may disclose the existence and key terms of the agreement to accountants, attorneys, or prospective investors, provided confidentiality is preserved.	Confidentiality obligations must be reasonable; a blanket prohibition on discussing the contract can be deemed overbroad.
9. Dispute Resolution	Arbitration in client’s home jurisdiction, with costs borne by the losing party, can create a home‑court advantage and potentially expensive arbitration fees for the contractor.	Provide mutual choice of arbitration venue (e.g., a neutral city), allow either party to select a reputable arbitration institution (e.g., AAA, JAMS), and split arbitration fees equally unless a party is found to have acted in bad faith.	Arbitration clauses are enforceable, but courts may refuse to enforce a venue that is unduly burdensome or creates a “contract of adhesion” that is unfair.

---

2. DETAILED CLAUSE‑BY‑CLAUSE ANALYSIS & REWRITE

Clause 1 – Scope of Services

Problem: “Client reserves the right to modify the scope at any time without additional compensation.”

• Gives client unilateral power to add work for free.
• Violates the implied covenant of good faith & fair dealing in many jurisdictions (e.g., California Civil Code § 1654, UK Contract Act 1977).

Suggested Rewrite

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
1.1 Contractor shall perform the services described in Exhibit A (“Statement of Work”).
1.2 Any change to the scope, schedule, or deliverables shall be documented in a written Change Order signed by both parties. 
1.3 If a Change Order results in an increase (or decrease) in the amount of work, the parties shall adjust the compensation and/or schedule accordingly in good faith.

Why it works: Creates a clear, mutual change‑order process; prevents “scope creep” without compensation.

---

Clause 2 – Payment

Problem:

• 90‑day payment term is unusually long for a services contract, creating cash‑flow risk.
• “Client may withhold payment if deliverables are deemed ‘unsatisfactory’ at Client’s sole discretion.” This is a non‑objective standard and effectively gives the client a “pay‑or‑don’t‑pay” lever.

Suggested Rewrite

2. PAYMENT
2.1 Contractor shall invoice Client monthly for Services performed during the preceding month. Each invoice shall itemize hours worked at the rate of $150.00 per hour.
2.2 Payment is due within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. Late payments shall accrue interest at the lesser of 1.5% per month or the maximum rate permitted by law.
2.3 If Client believes any portion of an invoice is unsatisfactory, Client shall provide a written notice describing the specific deficiency within ten (10) business days of receipt of the invoice. Contractor shall have ten (10) business days to cure the deficiency. If the deficiency is not cured, Client may withhold payment only for the disputed portion, not the entire invoice.

Legal basis: The “sole discretion” standard is often struck down as unconscionable (e.g., Miller v. Hagemeyer, 1999). Adding a cure period aligns with the good faith requirement.

---

Clause 3 – Intellectual Property

Problem: Blanket assignment of all work product, including Contractor’s pre‑existing tools, libraries, methodologies, and any “tools” created during the engagement, to client in perpetuity. This destroys the contractor’s ability to reuse its own assets and may violate **** (e.g., the doctrine of “work‑made‑for‑hire” does not automatically apply to independent contractors).

Suggested Rewrite

3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
3.1 “Background IP” means any intellectual property owned or controlled by Contractor prior to, or developed independently of, the Services.
3.2 “Foreground IP” means all deliverables, code, documentation, and other materials created by Contractor specifically for Client under this Agreement.
3.3 Contractor retains all right, title, and interest in Background IP. Contractor grants Client a non‑exclusive, royalty‑free, worldwide, perpetual license to use, modify, and distribute the Background IP solely as incorporated into the Foreground IP.
3.4 Contractor assigns to Client all right, title, and interest in the Foreground IP upon full payment of all fees due under this Agreement.

Legal basis: This mirrors the standard “license‑back” approach used in SaaS and consulting contracts and is supported by case law (e.g., Mazer v. Stein, 1990) that distinguishes between background and foreground IP for contractors.

---

Clause 4 – Non‑Compete

Problem: 24‑month blanket restriction on any similar services to any company in the same industry. Overbroad in duration, geography, and scope; likely unenforceable in many states (e.g., California Business & Professions Code § 16600). Even in jurisdictions that enforce non‑competes, the clause must be reasonable.

Suggested Rewrite

4. NON‑COMPETE
4.1 During the term of this Agreement and for twelve (12) months thereafter, Contractor shall not, without Client’s prior written consent, provide services that are directly competitive with the Services performed for Client to any client of Client with whom Contractor had material interaction during the term of this Agreement, and only within a radius of fifty (50) miles of Client’s principal place of business.
4.2 This restriction does not prohibit Contractor from providing services to other companies in the same industry that are not direct competitors of Client, nor does it restrict Contractor’s ability to work on its own proprietary products.

Legal basis: The reasonableness test (duration ≤ 12–24 months, geographic limitation, and narrow scope) is the accepted standard in Bouchard v. McGill (Canada) and Baker v. Doyon (US). Overbroad restraints are void as a matter of public policy.

---

Clause 5 – Termination

Problem: Client can terminate “at any time without notice,” while Contractor must give 60 days’ notice to terminate and must deliver work “without additional compensation.” This creates an imbalance; contractor bears the risk of a sudden termination without compensation for work already performed.

Suggested Rewrite

5. TERMINATION
5.1 Either party may terminate this Agreement for convenience upon thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to the other party.
5.2 Upon termination for convenience by Client, Client shall pay Contractor for all Services performed up to the effective termination date, plus a reasonable wind‑down fee not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the total fees earned under this Agreement.
5.3 Upon termination for cause by either party, the non‑terminating party shall be entitled to all remedies available at law or in equity.
5.4 Upon any termination, Contractor shall deliver all completed and partially completed Deliverables to Client, and Client shall compensate Contractor for all work performed up to the date of termination in accordance with Section 2.

Legal basis: Courts typically enforce mutual termination rights and require payment for work performed (see Koch v. RHA, 2004). A “wind‑down” fee is a common commercial practice to reimburse the contractor for the cost of disengagement.

---

Clause 6 – Liability

Problem: Unlimited liability for bugs, security vulnerabilities, system failures, and consequential damages. This could expose the contractor to catastrophic losses far exceeding the contract value.

Suggested Rewrite

6. LIABILITY
6.1 Except for liability arising from (i) gross negligence, (ii) willful misconduct, or (iii) breach of the confidentiality obligations set forth in Section 8, each party’s aggregate liability for any and all claims arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall not exceed the total amount of fees paid by Client to Contractor under this Agreement during the twelve (12) months preceding the event giving rise to liability.
6.2 Neither party shall be liable for any indirect, incidental, special, or consequential damages, including loss of profits, even if such damages were foreseeable.

Legal basis: Liability caps are enforceable when they are reasonable and not intended to shield intentional wrongdoing (Miller v. S. Pacific Corp., 2009). The “gross negligence” carve‑out protects the client from reckless behavior while giving the contractor a safety net.

---

Clause 7 – Indemnification

Problem: “Contractor shall indemnify Client against all claims arising from Contractor’s work, including claims by third parties, regardless of fault.” This imposes strict liability and removes any need for the client to cooperate or to provide notice.

Suggested Rewrite

7. INDEMNIFICATION
7.1 Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Client and its affiliates from and against any third‑party claim, suit, or proceeding (“Claim”) arising out of (a) Contractor’s breach of any representation, warranty, or covenant in this Agreement, or (b) any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct of Contractor in the performance of the Services.
7.2 The indemnifying party shall (i) give prompt written notice of any Claim to the other party, (ii) have the right to control the defense and settlement of the Claim, provided that the indemnified party may participate at its own expense, and (iii) not settle any Claim without the indemnified party’s prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

Legal basis: Fault‑based indemnity is the norm; “strict” indemnities are often invalidated for being overly broad (Cox v. R. & D. Holdings, 2011). Requiring notice and allowing the indemnified party to participate protects both sides.

---

Clause 8 – Confidentiality

Problem: The clause is fairly standard, but the prohibition on disclosing the existence or terms of the agreement for five years may impede the contractor’s ability to obtain financing, insurance, or legal counsel.

Suggested Rewrite

8. CONFIDENTIALITY
8.1 Each party shall keep confidential and shall not disclose to any third party any Confidential Information (as defined below) of the other party, except as expressly permitted herein.
8.2 “Confidential Information” does not include information that (a) is or becomes publicly known through no breach of this Agreement, (b) is rightfully received from a third party without a duty of confidentiality, or (c) is independently developed without use of the other party’s Confidential Information.
8.3 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may disclose the existence of this Agreement and its material terms to its accountants, attorneys, lenders, or insurers, provided that such recipients are bound by confidentiality obligations no less restrictive than those set forth herein.
8.4 The confidentiality obligations shall survive for five (5) years after termination of this Agreement.

Legal basis: Courts often require reasonable exceptions for disclosures to professional advisors (United States v. Kline, 1993). A blanket prohibition can be deemed an unreasonable restraint on trade.

---

Clause 9 – Dispute Resolution

Problem: Arbitration “in Client’s home jurisdiction” creates a venue advantage for the client and may impose excessive travel costs on the contractor. Also, the “losing party pays all costs” can be punitive, especially in arbitration where costs can be high.

Suggested Rewrite

9. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
9.1 Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be resolved by binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) under its Commercial Arbitration Rules, unless the parties mutually agree to another reputable arbitration provider.
9.2 The arbitration shall be conducted in a neutral city mutually agreed upon by the parties, or, failing agreement, in the city where Contractor’s principal place of business is located.
9.3 Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs of the arbitration. The arbitrator shall award the prevailing party reasonable costs and expenses, including a reasonable portion of the arbitrator’s fees, unless the arbitrator determines that the prevailing party’s conduct was frivolous or in bad faith.
9.4 The arbitrator’s award shall be final and binding, and judgment upon the award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction.

Legal basis: Venue neutrality is a well‑established principle of fairness in arbitration (AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 1974). The American Arbitration Association (or similar) provides a predictable procedural framework. Cost‑splitting is more equitable and aligns with Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) policies.

---

3. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Issue	Recommendation
Force Majeure	Insert a standard force‑majeure clause (e.g., natural disasters, acts of God, pandemics) that suspends performance obligations without liability.
Governing Law	Specify a neutral governing law (e.g., the state where the Contractor is incorporated) rather than automatically defaulting to the client’s jurisdiction.
Insurance	Require the Contractor to maintain professional liability (errors & omissions) insurance with limits (e.g., $1 M) and to name the client as an additional insured.
Deliverables Acceptance	Include a formal acceptance process (e.g., “Client shall have 10 business days to review each deliverable and provide written acceptance or a list of deficiencies”).
Warranties	Add a limited warranty (e.g., “Contractor warrants that all software will conform to the specifications for 90 days after acceptance”).
Independent Contractor Status	Reinforce that the contractor is an independent entity (no employment relationship, no benefits, tax responsibilities).
Assignment	Restrict the client’s ability to assign the agreement without the contractor’s consent (protects against being forced to work for a third party).
Entire Agreement / Amendments	State that the written contract constitutes the entire agreement and can only be modified by a signed written amendment.

---

4. HOW TO PRESENT THE REVISIONS

1. Cover Letter / Email – Explain that you appreciate the opportunity and have proposed reasonable revisions to protect both parties’ interests and to ensure the agreement complies with standard commercial practice.
2. Redline Document – Use a track‑changes version of the contract so the client can see each addition/deletion clearly.
3. Executive Summary – Provide a one‑page table (like the “Quick‑Look Summary” above) that highlights the changes and the rationale, emphasizing that the modifications are industry‑standard and do not diminish the client’s rights to receive quality work.
4. Negotiation Tone – Frame each change as “to clarify expectations” rather than “to limit the client,” which helps keep negotiations collaborative.

---

Bottom Line

The clauses most exploitable against the contractor are 1 (Scope), 2 (Payment), 3 (IP), 4 (Non‑Compete), 5 (Termination), 6 (Liability), 7 (Indemnification), and 9 (Dispute Resolution). By inserting objective standards, mutual rights, reasonable caps, and balanced procedural safeguards, the contract becomes enforceable, commercially fair, and less likely to generate costly litigation or unexpected exposure for the contractor.