""In all sorts of different conversations, we make so many assumptions about what other people need or want," Nadarajah says. "Often that leads us down paths that do not align with what that person actually needs or wants." That habit shows up in contracting too, where assumptions about the other party's priorities or risk tolerance can lock deals into unnecessary cycles of redlines and delay."
"Contract data offers an antidote. If you can see which clauses are negotiated most often and which are rarely touched, you have a better foundation for asking the right questions. Why does this clause take so long to resolve? Does the other side actually care about this indemnity, or are we protecting against an imaginary risk? The goal is to challenge the status quo, not by gut feel but by evidence."
"Start By Questioning The Default The fastest way to make a contract unusable is to assume you already know what will work for the counterparty. Legal teams often start with a template designed years ago, filled with clauses that have survived purely because no one challenged them. By the time the first draft goes out, the positions are already hardened."
Assumptions about counterparties' needs and risk tolerance often misalign negotiations and cause unnecessary redlines and delays. Legacy templates can harden positions by embedding unchallenged clauses that rarely reflect current priorities. Contract data reveals which clauses are frequently negotiated and which are neglected, enabling evidence-based questioning of real risks versus imagined ones. Low-risk clauses can be standardized, preapproved, or automated to free negotiation bandwidth. Early questioning of business partner needs and defining minimum protections allows efficient tradeoffs and concentrates negotiation energy on genuinely material issues, accelerating deal cycles.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]