Question about a 'standard' indemnity clause my lawyer friend flagged

My lawyer friend insisted I push back on a vendor's 'standard' indemnity clause that would have made my small business cover their legal fees for ANY third-party claim, even if they were at fault, and after a six-month negotiation they finally agreed to a mutual, fault-based version that saved me from a potential $15,000 liability last quarter.

4 comments

4 Comments

owens.laura2mo ago

Good call listening to your friend. How do people even get away with putting stuff like that in a contract? It's wild that you had to fight for six months just to get to a normal, fair deal. That original clause was a total trap... glad you dodged it. Those "standard" forms are never as harmless as they want you to think.

bell.jessica2mo ago

Honestly that "standard forms" thing reminds me of when @the_eric got a lease with a crazy cleaning fee buried on page eight.

kevinw943d ago

Six months just to get basic fairness... that's like negotiating for a month to make sure the burger you order actually has meat in it. I swear these companies bank on people just signing whatever gets shoved in front of them because who's got time to read 40 pages of legalese after a 12 hour shift? The fact that they fought you that hard on a clause that would have let them sue you for their own screwups tells you everything you need to know about how "standard" those forms really are. It's like buying a "used car" that turns out to have no engine and the seller acts shocked you want one included. Your lawyer friend earned their beer for that catch, no question.

the_eric2mo ago

Yeah, the part about "normal, fair deal" really hits home. It's crazy how often those "standard" forms are stacked against the little guy from the start. You end up spending so much time and stress just to get back to a basic level of fair play. Good on you for sticking it out for those six months, even though that's way too long to fix something that shouldn't have been in there to begin with.