Allocation of risk in commercial contracts represents a key negotiation point. Each party to a commercial contract seeks to minimize its risk and maximize its reward, which creates an inherent tension between contracting parties. When drafting and negotiating a contract, parties can use many common provisions to manage risk.
Allocation of risk is central to all commercial contract negotiations. Each party to a commercial contract seeks to minimize its risk and maximize its reward, which creates an inherent tension between contracting parties. Parties can manage risk by carefully negotiating and drafting many common contractual provisions.
While all provisions in a commercial contract can be used to allocate risk, certain key provisions are commonly used as risk allocation tools. These include:
Representations and warranties.
Indemnification.
Limitation of liability.
Express contractual remedies.
Payment terms.
Product warranties.
Force majeure.
Representations and Warranties
Representations and warranties are generally used to allocate risk by:
Apportioning exposure to potential losses and shifting risk from the recipient to the maker.
Creating a direct claim against the maker if representations and warranties are inaccurate.
Serving as a basis for the parties' indemnification rights.
The broader the representation or warranty, the more risk is assumed by the maker. Makers commonly attempt to narrow their risk by:
Qualifying their representations and warranties.
Limiting the survival of representations and warranties.
Including anti-sandbagging provisions.
Including a limitation on the overall amount of a party's liability for inaccuracy or breach (commonly called a cap).
Designating express, exclusive contractual remedies for inaccuracy or breach, often limited to the recipient's indemnification right.
A well-drafted indemnification provision allows parties to customize their risk allocation by:
Shifting the burden of loss.
Compensating an indemnified party for:
risks it did not assume; and
expenses that may not be recoverable under common law, like attorneys' fees.
Minimizing uncertainty regarding the scope of future potential liabilities.
Reducing the likelihood of litigation concerning the allocation of liability between the parties and the available remedies.
Shifting the cost of defending third-party claims.
Each party benefits most by limiting its own indemnification obligations and expanding those of the other party. To minimize indemnification obligations, parties should seek to minimize the scope of the provision. Conversely, parties can also use indemnification as an exclusive remedy to avoid exposure to extra-contractual damages (including punitive damages).
Key factors contributing to the scope of the indemnity include:
Who is indemnified, including third parties.
What claims are covered.
The required nexus event and the indemnified party's damages.
Recoverable damages.
Whether there are any exceptions to indemnification.
Limitation of liability clauses can be used to define the scope and magnitude of the parties' contractual liabilities. For example, parties can exclude liability for:
Specific types of damages, such as:
indirect damages;
consequential damages; and
punitive damages.
Damages that are disproportionate in relation to the economics of the transaction, for example, by capping compensatory damages.
Limitation of liability provisions can be particularly valuable in commercial agreements where tort remedies, such as punitive damages, may otherwise apply. Parties should tailor a limitation of liability clause to meet their needs. For example, a limitation of liability clause may apply to:
The contract as a whole.
Only specific contract terms.
Individual transactions entered into under a master agreement.
The provisions that make up a commercial contract's express remedial scheme can allocate risk by:
Narrowing or expanding available common law remedies.
Minimizing uncertainty regarding the scope of potential liability.
While courts have final decision-making authority in awarding remedies, contractual provisions defining the parties' intended remedies generally hold important evidentiary weight. Depending on the circumstances of the contract, parties can allocate risk by including or excluding contractual provisions that address:
Equitable remedies. An equitable remedies provision states the parties' intention that monetary relief is inadequate to fully compensate an aggrieved party and grant the aggrieved party the right to obtain equitable remedies in addition to any remedies available at law. For information on equitable remedies, see:
Liquidated damages. A liquidated damages provision is a type of exclusive remedies clause that requires the breaching party to pay a pre-determined fixed amount, or an amount based on a pre-determined formula, to the non-breaching party. For information on liquidated damages, see Standard Clauses, General Contract Clauses: Liquidated Damages.
Depending on the nature of the transaction and each party's contractual commitments, these provisions may be:
Unilateral or mutual.
Applicable to only a specific contract term or the contract as a whole.
Any delay or acceleration of required payments impacts each party's available cash and risk of default. Parties can draft payment terms provisions to shift and manage risk by allowing payments to be either deferred or advanced.
Most commercial agreements involve some form of deferred payment obligation. With deferred payment terms:
Sellers try to minimize risk by reducing the amount of time between delivery and payment, which:
decreases the risk of the buyer's nonpayment; and
gives the seller more time to recoup its investment in the goods.
Buyers try to expand the period between delivery and payment, which increases its opportunity to:
use available cash for other business activities; and
inspect goods and confirm that they are satisfactory.
Advance payment terms provide:
Obligors with useful flexibility regarding timing of payments (unless advance payment is mandatory).
Obligees with a reduced risk of nonpayment by receiving amounts owed sooner than expected.
A force majeure provision allows a contracting party to mitigate its risk of breach due to events or circumstances it did not cause and could not have anticipated. Both obligors and obligees should carefully consider the scope of force majeure provisions because:
Obligors risk breach if an event not designated as a force majeure event prevents performance of contractual obligations.
Obligees risk forfeiting a claim of breach if an obligor fails to perform its contractual obligations due to an event that the parties designated as a force majeure event.
Other common contract provisions that play an important role in risk allocation include:
Termination rights.
Insurance coverage.
Guaranties.
Termination Rights
Termination rights allow one or both parties to end the contractual term before its stated expiration under certain agreed circumstances. A unilateral termination right creates significant negotiation leverage for the party holding the rights. Termination rights generally fall into two categories:
In some commercial agreements, parties allocate risk by requiring one or both parties to maintain specific levels of insurance coverage. Insurance coverage confirms that a party has the financial capacity to satisfy its liabilities under the contract by shifting risk from the insured to its insurer.
Guaranty provisions manage the risk of nonpayment or other failure to perform by a contractual counter-party. They are often used when the financial capacity or creditworthiness of a party is uncertain. A guaranty shifts risk from the obligor to the guarantor, providing an extra level of protection against default.