I finally had to walk away from a contract over the indemnification clause

Last week I was reviewing a service agreement for a $4,500 kitchen remodel in Portland. The indemnification clause said I'd have to cover their legal costs if anything went wrong, even if it wasn't my fault. I asked them to change it three times and they just kept saying it was their standard form. After a week of emails back and forth, I told them I couldn't sign. Has anyone else had to walk from a decent paying job because of a one-sided clause like that?

3 comments

3 Comments

adam1863d ago

Is it really that serious though? Honest question - did you have any actual reason to think you'd be liable for their legal costs? Seems like a lot of money to walk away from over standard legal boilerplate.

abbyhall2d ago

Oh jeez, I actually just read a piece about this exact thing in some small biz newsletter. Apparently even boilerplate can get you if the other side decides to be aggressive about it, and a lot of those clauses are written broadly enough that a judge might not toss it out. I get why people think it's just standard stuff, but once you're in a legal fight, nothing feels standard anymore. Losing 10 grand is better than owing 50 grand in fees plus the original amount, at least in my book.

fionanguyen2d ago

Honest question" huh? Yeah, I guess if you wanna play russian roulette with your savings account, go for it. But that "standard legal boilerplate" is basically a landmine with a nice bow on it. You sign it thinking it's nothing, then bam, you're in court and the other side's lawyer is reading it out loud like it's the constitution. And sure, losing 10 grand stings, but it stings a whole lot less than explaining to your spouse why the lawyer gets the new couch money instead of them. I'd rather pay to walk away than pay to keep fighting a dumb clause I barely read.