|No such thing as a small change|
Yes, 'the day will come...' and yes, 'there is always “time to smoke it over,”....'
So I consider some of sundialsvc4's comments meritorious but his opening inference, ' the moral of this story is that you should “have a lawyer on retainer.”' and the cost argument in the second para are -- IMO -- wrong and wrong-headed.
OT but perhaps informative: my own mindset keeps me trying to balance MJD's stance and my own "kill all the lawyers" rage. I'm convinced that today's business culture (at least in the U.S.) is wasteful for both sides of many ordinary transactions because business owners and managers are pushed into liability-phobia as much by fear of shareholder suits (fomented by unscrupulous lawyers) as by the prospect of actually incurring liability.
But back to an on topic reply, two points:
IMO, for those in that situation, most of us need only make a point of KNOWING a lawyer who's competent to handle contractual language but should then pay for professional services only when necessary and only when confronted with a new issue -- be that allegedly innocuous language upon which a client insists or a circumstances which moot my next suggestion.
That leads to an alternate approach: HIRE a lawyer to draft a tightly drawn and narrowly scoped template; then fill in blanks such as the prospective-client's name, and present that as YOUR basis for negotiations. Of course, be ready to go back, paying an hourly rate, for help if there really must be legal details specific to the work.
Yeah, some prospects will be unwilling to work with you on that basis, but a sufficiently narrow offering that specifies the scope of work may just persuade the prospective buyer to save attorney-fee expense at that end... and save you the annual cost of keeping an attorney on retainer.
In reply to Re^2: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly