Plain English Contracts Can Be Reasonable

Last year, Dick Locke, who has an entire state on his side, wrote a great post on the importance of plain English in contracts. Then, last month, with the help of The Temp Life (Season 2, Episode 7), I made it very clear what might happen if you don’t follow his advice.

But one aspect of contracts we haven’t tackled yet is that of “reasonableness”. As highlighted in this recent article over on SupplyManagement.com which asks you to “now be reasonable”, these clauses can end up causing more disputes than they ultimately resolve. While they are included in the hopes of raising contentious issues during critical phases of contract negotiations, they simply delay the inevitable because, given enough time, a supply disruption will happen and finger pointing will begin.

The key to preventing disputes is to define precisely what conditions define a breach and what steps each party will take to try and remedy it, in plain English, so there are no disagreements down the line. While it’s true that a contract cannot predict, or define a remedy for, every type of disruption that could happen, it can predict, and define actions for, the most likely disruptions. The use of plain English to define reasonable remedies for these disruptions will prevent problems down the line. This will minimize the chance that the “catch-all” reasonableness clause will need to be invoked, but even if the “catch-all” clause does need to be invoked, if the reconciliation process is defined in plain English (notify, meet, accept, correct, etc.), things will still go smoother than if plain English is not used.

Share This on Linked In

Greener Shipping Can Save Green

… but green goes beyond just packaging and carrier efficiency. In other words, while a recent article in the Environmental Leader on “how greener shipping can make you more green” had some great advice that should be a starting point in your shipping considerations, I think it missed a few key points. Furthermore, it advocated carbon offsets over greener technology, which is not the answer. You need to solve the sustainability problem, not just shift the burden to someone else who may or may not solve the problem with your cash.

To understand what green shipping truly requires, we need to start with a review of some of the key points made by the author:

Pick Packaging With Care

This goes without saying. As the author notes, the packaging must be unbleached, minimal, and should use recycled materials that meet the relevant environment standards. But before you address packaging, you need to address the product. Is it small and dense, or large and vacuous? If the latter, can it be shipped unassembled or partially assembled to save space, and thus, packaging? In other words, good packaging is more than just material selection, it’s maximizing how much you can get in a shipment (without a significant risk of damage).

Choose Efficient Shipping

This also goes without saying, but this is more than just choosing a carrier who has well planned routes, avoids wasted trips, and doesn’t send three trucks a day when one will do. It’s making sure that you’ve optimized your daily/weekly/monthly shipping schedules to maximize truckload volume, use the most carbon-efficient mode of transport possible (be it rail, ocean, truck, or air), and set up the right processes and systems to make sure their are no hold-ups or waits on your end during shipping or receiving.

Mitigate Shipping Related Emissions

This is a must, but carbon credits aren’t the answer. The answer is lower emission (bio) fuel, more efficient (hybrid) engines, and conversion to green power in your facilities (wind, solar, hydro, etc.) where the batteries for the hybrid/electric vehicles are recharged.

Read the Report

You should definitely do your homework, but don’t stop with the company’s official sustainability report which has been routed through their PR — search the traditional (online newspapers, magazines, etc.) and new media (blogs, forums, etc.) to see if there is any coverage or discussion around their sustainability and corporate responsibility and what the market has to say.

Share This on Linked In

None of Us …

… is as dumb as all of us!

While generally regarded as true, there has, unfortunately, been a lack of evidence to support the belief … until now! As per this recent article on the Knowledge @ Wharton site on “how group dynamics may be killing innovation”, a recent study by Christian Terwiesch and Karl Ulrich demonstrated that the average quality of the ideas generated by the hybrid process [where participants were given time to brainstorm on their own] were better than those that came from the team process by roughly 30 percentage points. While this may not be the gap the researchers were hoping for, it shows that even in a simple study where there is nothing to lose by trying to get the best idea pushed through, it won’t happen if everyone is asked to innovate as a team. I can only imagine how much innovation is being lost when there are real stakes in the real world! Innovation requires creativity and vision … more specifically, creativity of the individual and the vision of the group to realize it.

Is The Road to Riches Paved With Oil?

… and blood?

According to this recent article in the Wall Street Journal by Scott Adams, if you want to get rich, put your money on companies that you hate the most because the usual reason for hating a company is that the company is so powerful it can make you balance your wallet on your nose while you beg for their product. Why? Those companies are typically wildly successful and the type that will generate a big return on your investment. Like the oil companies. One accident turns paradise into purdition, but they still get richer and more powerful. And if they have a Dogbert in charge, with a Catbert managing human resources, they do even better. Which leads me to ask, is the road to riches paved with oil, or, as the recent rash of suicides at a major manufacturer appear to demonstrate, blood?