How contracts are handled varies from school, but there are a few common rough spots that could be smoothed out with some effort on both sides.
The simple goal, of course, is to have the artist work and the school get programming and have both of them covered with reasonable protection.
It’s always the reasonable protection that gets lawyers in a tizzy. One person’s idea of reasonable might be different from someone else’s.
I need to start this with the lovely acronym, IANAL, which stands for I am not a lawyer. Meaning I’m going to use normal language and talk about interests in general terms.
Let’s start with sticky spot number one, the dreaded Termination Clause:
This is the current language in the standard Swift Kick contract. This is the “no hard feelings” version of a termination clause, where, basically, either party can walk out on the contract at anytime and only be on the hook for money paid. If the flights are purchased, and a down payment was made, whoever canceled is out the money.
This clause assumes that both parties want to make it work, and that if it doesn’t something serious must have come up.
This clause, by implication, also assumes the parties want to maintain a positive relationship and that both sides will be reasonable in the event of a cancellation. Lawyers don’t like to make this assumption, and will sometimes want to write contracts adversarially.
They would prefer to write in something to the effect of “if the performer cancels the contract for any reason other than an act of God, the performer shall reimburse the school for all expenses incurred including room expenses, promotional material and all labor.”
This, in the lawyer view, gives the school the right to collect what they want in the rare egregious case of a negligent performer, while also allowing the school to not collect the money in the more normal, “let’s reschedule”, the cancellation was regrettable but reasonable and unavoidable, scenario.
I’ve received a few contracts with wording like this and this is where it becomes sticky. We want the best relationship with a school possible and want to work with them and their legal needs, but it does not make economic sense for us to sign a contract that has potential liability far exceeding the revenue generated.
While I understand that a school could have been burned once or twice and would therefore want the most options, experienced performers will have similar experiences (99% positive, 1% difficult) and, once the conversation starts assuming conflict, they may want maximum protection as well. Then we get stuck in the tug-of-war.
We feel that it is best to meet in the middle right away. We’ll give the school the right to cancel whenever and only be out a down payment, if applicable, in exchange for the right to reschedule without having to discuss labor costs of students.
So let’s get the war stories. Who has a termination clause they like and why? What’s the win-win framework? Should rescheduling be made explicit in the contract?
