In a contract negotiation whatever side you may act for there are many things that can be changed through open minded frank discussion and creative solutions.
Mostly a position can be found that accommodates the interests and objectives of both parties. Issues that seemed insurmountable on price or service levels or ownership of intellectual property can be resolved once the concerns the protagonists may have are recognised, articulated and understood.
Sometimes this may mean taking an issue away from the main negotiating table, where there are, as a very sage mediator once said in a complex mediation, sometimes "too many egos in the room". Talking direct to the lawyers on the other side openly and without any clients present often opens up a route to resolving intricate and delicate points of disagreement. Neither side has to "showboat" to their clients and there is less chance of being side tracked by a lack of understanding of a technical legal issue.
However there is a limit to this flexibility and it pays to recognise it. Each party to a negotiation will have some issues or points that for whatever reason, cultural or business, they will not change come hell or high water. It maybe to do with their brand or market position, or just an immutable policy. I recall one company which was party to a negotiation of a complex contractual joint venture that set a certain limit of liability and would not budge. They would walk away from the deal rather than concede this issue, though on any other points they would compromise.
So working out as soon as possible during the negotiation what these "walk away" issues are is essential. There are often very few such absolutely critical points, but once recognised there is little point wasting time trying to change them.
These issues, like brick walls, will not move or go away, or be watered down. Like the wolf in the fairy tale of the three little pigs you can huff and you can puff but you won't blow them down. So work out if you are able to accept them, and if you can don't waste energy on them and focus on things that can be changed.
Mostly a position can be found that accommodates the interests and objectives of both parties. Issues that seemed insurmountable on price or service levels or ownership of intellectual property can be resolved once the concerns the protagonists may have are recognised, articulated and understood.
Sometimes this may mean taking an issue away from the main negotiating table, where there are, as a very sage mediator once said in a complex mediation, sometimes "too many egos in the room". Talking direct to the lawyers on the other side openly and without any clients present often opens up a route to resolving intricate and delicate points of disagreement. Neither side has to "showboat" to their clients and there is less chance of being side tracked by a lack of understanding of a technical legal issue.
However there is a limit to this flexibility and it pays to recognise it. Each party to a negotiation will have some issues or points that for whatever reason, cultural or business, they will not change come hell or high water. It maybe to do with their brand or market position, or just an immutable policy. I recall one company which was party to a negotiation of a complex contractual joint venture that set a certain limit of liability and would not budge. They would walk away from the deal rather than concede this issue, though on any other points they would compromise.
So working out as soon as possible during the negotiation what these "walk away" issues are is essential. There are often very few such absolutely critical points, but once recognised there is little point wasting time trying to change them.
These issues, like brick walls, will not move or go away, or be watered down. Like the wolf in the fairy tale of the three little pigs you can huff and you can puff but you won't blow them down. So work out if you are able to accept them, and if you can don't waste energy on them and focus on things that can be changed.
RSS Feed
