The 5 Clauses That Prevent 80% of Business Disputes
Many business disputes are not accidents. They arise from the same recurring situations — a partner who leaves and takes clients, a deadlock over a major business decision, a disagreement over what the contract actually required, a triggering event with no agreed process for resolving it. The legal infrastructure that prevents these disputes from becoming litigation is built into contracts and governing documents before the problems arise. This post identifies five provisions that address the most common sources of business conflict.
1. Buy-Sell Provisions
The absence of a clear buy-sell mechanism in a business’s governing documents is the single most common structural deficiency that practitioners encounter in business disputes. When an owner wants to exit — or must exit due to death, disability, or a relationship breakdown — and there is no agreed process for valuing and transferring the interest, the parties end up in litigation. A buy-sell provision establishes the triggering events, the valuation methodology, and the payment terms in advance, before emotions and competing interests make agreement impossible.
2. Deadlock Resolution Mechanisms
Fifty-fifty ownership structures are common in closely held businesses and they are also one of the most reliable sources of litigation. When two equal owners cannot agree on a significant business decision and neither has contractual authority to break the tie, the business can become paralyzed. A deadlock resolution provision addresses this in advance. Options range from a defined escalation process, to a mediator or tie-breaking mechanism, to a shotgun or buy-sell trigger that activates when deadlock persists beyond a defined period. None of these options is perfect, but all of them are better than having no mechanism at all.
3. Restrictive Covenants
Non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions address what happens when a business relationship ends and the departing party retains knowledge of the business’s clients, trade secrets, and competitive strategy. In New Jersey and New York, the enforceability of restrictive covenants depends on whether they are reasonable in scope, duration, and geographic reach. A well-drafted restrictive covenant that is tailored to the specific business relationship is far more likely to be enforceable — and far more useful as a deterrent — than boilerplate language.
4. Governing Law, Venue, and Dispute Resolution
When a dispute arises, the first questions are often where it gets resolved and under what rules. A governing law and venue clause determines which state’s law applies and where litigation must be filed. An arbitration clause determines whether the dispute goes to court at all, or instead to a private arbitration forum. Parties who litigate without clear governing law and venue provisions often spend significant resources fighting about process before addressing the merits of the dispute. Deciding these questions in the contract — when the parties are still aligned — is far more efficient than resolving them in adversarial proceedings.
5. Fee-Shifting Provisions
The American rule in U.S. litigation is that each party pays its own attorneys’ fees, regardless of outcome. Fee-shifting provisions, which allow the prevailing party to recover fees from the losing party, change that presumption and affect the economics of dispute. A contractual fee-shifting clause can deter frivolous claims and encourage early resolution, because a party that knows it may have to pay the other side’s legal fees if it loses has a stronger incentive to evaluate its position honestly before proceeding. The enforceability and interpretation of fee-shifting clauses under New Jersey and New York law depend on the specific language used.
Business owners who want to evaluate whether their existing agreements contain these provisions and whether they are drafted effectively should consult with a business attorney to review their documents. For related topics, see our pages on business contracts, restrictive covenants, and arbitration clauses.
Business owners who want to evaluate whether their existing agreements contain these provisions are welcome to schedule a consultation with Russo Law LLC to review their documents.
Disclaimer
The legal and business issues discussed in this post vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. The legal and business issues discussed in this post vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation. This corporate lawyer blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is not an offer for Russo Law LLC to represent any party, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. No action or inaction should be taken based on the information provided without seeking professional legal counsel. This post is intended for businesses in New York and New Jersey. It may not reflect laws in other jurisdictions.
Do not send confidential or sensitive information through this website or in response to this blog post. Unsolicited information does not create an attorney-client relationship and should not be treated as privileged or confidential.