Agreements not arguments
Author: Mark Thompson, Founder & MD
‘A contract is supposed to be an agreement,’ a colleague once said, ‘not an argument.’ His words stuck with me.
On large complex projects, disputes are a known risk—so frequent that contracts make specific provisions for them. To mitigate the risk, pragmatists use a colourful acronym: ‘RTFC’. If only people did!
When I started out, dog-eared contracts, full of Post-Its, highlights, and scribbles were a badge of pride. Pristine documents, neatly filed, painted a different picture. ‘Tracked changes’ don’t feel the same. But still.
If relations crumble, though, and neither side has been keeping to the original agreement, what do you do?
Years ago, a client and contractor were steering towards a dispute like a tanker heading inevitably for the rocks.
‘A contract is supposed to be an agreement,’ a colleague once said, ‘not an argument.’ His words stuck with me.
The solution was Change Order 23. It drew a line in the sand, compensating the contractor for changes made, along with accumulated disruptions to date. Vitally, it recorded a renewed bilateral resolution to implement the provisions in the contract from that point on.
Rather than scuttle the ship, try ‘Change Order 23’. It resolves the crisis, restores trust, and allows work to proceed. It also offers a strong (and tested) defence against future claims based on accumulated effects. But that’s another story.