Limitation of Liability and Confidentiality Provisions in Tech Contracts
This post is based on a question about limitation of liability that I answered on Quora.
Q. Why do technology contracts often carve breach of confidentiality out of the limitation of liability?
A. I’m going to start by broadening the discussion, a bit.
First, the carve-outs typically modify both limitation of liability and limitation of damages. So, whereas an agreement might include provisions both limiting? the total (dollar) amount of liability and liability for consequential damages, such limitations will not apply to the carved-out subject matter.
IP Indemnification: Who Will Be There to Satisfy the Obligation?
Almost a year ago, I posted IP Warranties and Indemnification: How Much is Reasonable? This post addresses a related subject: If you get the other party to agree to indemnify you, who will be around to satisfy the obligation?
A client is in the process of acquiring all of the rights to certain software, which was developed by several recent college graduates who formed a limited liability company (LLC). The client knew to ask for indemnification against claims that the software infringes any third party’s intellectual property rights.
What the client had not thought about, however, was whether the LLC could satisfy the indemnification obligation – which is unlikely, given that the LLC probably (a) has few assets and (b) will be dissolved once the transaction is consummated.
Accordingly, I recommended that we include in the agreement the LLC members’ covenant to satisfy the indemnification obligation if the LLC, itself, doesn’t. The members may be unhappy, but if they want the transaction badly enough, they will agree.
Lesson: An indemnification obligation is only as valuable as the party takes it on.
Photo credit: Anna H-G via stock.xchng
This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact a lawyer directly.
Foreign Suppliers Beware: Five Contract “Gotchas” when Adapting Your Agreements
A couple of months ago, I posted International Business and Agreements: Learning about Legal Culture. This is a follow-up that discusses certain common problems when foreign suppliers bring their standard-form agreements to the U.S.
Filling in Gaps
During the past several years, I have helped quite a few foreign technology suppliers adapt their standard-form agreements for use in the U.S. The agreements that they use back home (translated to English, as required) are quaint by U.S. standards. There is a lot of white space, and fonts tend to be large. Furthermore, while the agreements specify business terms in detail, they address many legal provisions in a cursory fashion or not at all. (more…)
Limiting Liability when You are the One Being Paid
From time to time, I answer questions – typically about the law or about startups – on LinkedIn. Recently I answered the following question:
What is the best way [in a contract] to limit liability when you’re the party receiving payment?
I believe the answer will be helpful to any supplier of goods or services, so I am reproducing it here in slightly edited form.
IP Warranties and Indemnification: How Much is Reasonable?
Knowledgeable licensees of intellectual property (IP) seek indemnification protection to ensure that the licensed IP legitimately belongs to the licensor and not to a third party. This post explores the interplay between indemnification provisions and IP warranties.
While indemnification provisions vary from contract to contract, the following is illustrative:
Licensor will defend, indemnify and hold Licensee harmless from all costs, expenses, and damages arising from any third-party claim alleging that the Licensed IP infringes any patent or copyright or misappropriates any trade secret (a “Claim”), provided that Licensee has given Licensor prompt notice of the Claim, allows Licensor sole control of the defense of the Claim and of all negotiations for its settlement or compromise, and cooperates in all reasonable ways with Licensor’s defense or settlement of the Claim. If a Claim results in an injunction precluding Licensee’s use of the Licensed IP, Licensor will, at its option and expense, either (a) procure for Licensee the right to continue the enjoined use, or (b) replace or modify the Licensed IP so it is no longer subject to the injunction. If Licensor, after all commercially reasonable efforts, is unable to perform under either option (a) or (b) above, then Licensor will refund to Licensee an amount equal to the remaining undepreciated/unamortized value of the Licensed IP carried on Licensee’s books for U. S. federal income tax purposes as of the date that use of the Licensed IP was enjoined.
