If two parties enter into an agreement through a clear and obvious “meeting of minds” and also take external steps that show their intention to enter into an agreement, the contract could be considered binding. However, both theories could also be used if a party were to argue that there was no real intention to reach an agreement. This would depend on whether a “reasonable person” would believe that both parties were working in good faith on the agreement or whether the agreement was too good to be true and for the obvious benefit of one party. First, we will deal with important topics that are usually discussed in contract negotiations. Contracts can be classified to include a transaction such as a sale or purchase, or a relationship such as an employment contract. Both types of agreements require a gathering of opinions on the goods or services to be provided, remuneration, time and place of service, as well as dozens of ancillary issues such as confidentiality, dispute resolution and sometimes non-compete obligations. Relationship contracts typically contain terms that encourage the parties to continue working together, known as win-win terms, while transactions are often one-off. Many contracts include both. Objective contract theory states that an agreement between the parties is legally binding if, in the opinion of a person who is not a party to the contract, a company generally enters into negotiations with various objectives. But not all of them are equally weighted in a particular transaction. Each party will have its own priorities.
Before starting contract negotiations, it is important for a party to think about the key objectives it wants to achieve with the agreement. These are the main objectives of the company and must be prioritized. Some are key objectives that must be achieved for the Treaty to continue. If they cannot be agreed, the party will leave. These issues can be contrasted with other objectives that would be desirable if negotiated, but which are not necessarily essential for the respective exchanges. For the company, the definition of goal agreements saves time in the business process. Agreeing on overall and partial goals avoids duplication of work and helps coordinate processes and tasks. In addition, the setting of daily business processes can be shortened by clear rules and priorities of employee reach. The top priority in any attempt to negotiate the terms of the contract must be to secure the essential objectives of the company. If you are wondering how to negotiate a contract with these goals, you will find important tips in this article. Target contracts are a modern personnel management instrument in the form of performance-related variable remuneration, which is classified as continuous remuneration. [3] Good contracts result from good contract negotiations that require a clear understanding and focus on a company`s key objectives when drafting contracts.
Whether a contract is “good” depends entirely on the achievement of the company`s most important goals for interaction in negotiation. Various methods can be used for the determination of the target. An effective tool is the Balanced Scorecard. To achieve the objectives, it is important to check that it is transparent to the employee and perceived as fair. [10] In any event, what is one of the most important objectives in contract negotiations? Clarity. Any party negotiating a contract wants the terms to be clear. For a negotiated contract to be feasible, both parties must have an equal understanding of all the essential conditions. This means that an essential purpose of any contract is that the written terms explain and define the goods or services to be supplied. If the joke is not apparent and a reasonable listener would believe that an offer has been made, then the speaker risks forming a contract that was not intended.
It is the objective manifestations of the supplier that count and not the secret and tacit intentions. If the words or actions of a party, judged to a reasonable standard, express the intention to agree on the matter in question, that agreement has been reached and regardless of the party`s real but tacit state of mind about it. Barnes v. Treece, 549 p.2d 1152 (Wash. App. 1976). For employees, there are agreements of objectives for a clear orientation towards the objectives of the enterprise and their own field of work and a clear orientation as to the type of contribution or performance expected from the enterprise. In doing so, employees are actively involved in the company`s goals. The possibilities of creativity and autonomy are also extended to the employee.
Commissions and target agreements include performance-variable compensation, which is paid in addition to a fixed salary. However, individual compensation related to the performance of the commission is intended for employees who are not or will not be primarily employed in sales, or for whom, in any case, a sales or result service is not primarily provided. If the employer takes a target where only the commission is paid on performance, this is a target agreement. By agreeing on a bonus, employees participate in the economic success of the company with a certain percentage share. It is a success commission independent of the employee`s contribution to the success of the company. On the other hand, goal agreements must define the objectives to be achieved and influenced by the employee for his support. At the end of the financial year, it is always decided whether or not the objectives have been achieved in order to evaluate the employee`s performance. If it is only about the business performance of the company, which is not strongly influenced by the employee, then this is a bonus. [7] There is some disagreement as to whether the COMMON LAW on contracts requires judges to determine the subjective intent of the parties in order to recognize the existence of a contract, or whether judges were obliged to examine the external actions of the parties and then objectively determine whether a contract had been entered into. Some scholars argue that customary law has long used an objective criterion for the recognition of a contract. Other scholars and writers argue that the widespread use of objective treaty theory in courts was a much more recent phenomenon, perhaps developed in the late nineteenth century.
It is also recommended to apply for an alternative for each main objective in order to determine the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) for the company if the objective cannot be achieved in these contract negotiations. An alternative helps to put the problem into perspective. For example, if one company negotiates a delivery purchase and another seller offers the same good at a reasonable price, although slightly higher, the alternative measure is not expensive. If this negotiation fails, the company can enter into a contract with the other seller. The increased risk of conflict in assessing the achievement of objectives, especially if the objectives are not clear and complicated regulations arise due to the complex design of the objective agreement system, is reflected in the company`s side. The introduction and sustainable implementation of a system of target agreements is associated with high expenditure. Framework objectives must be defined and a comprehensive company-specific approach must be developed. Employees need to be informed and involved. Even managers and the board may need to be informed and involved in the process. In addition, managers must be trained in their new responsibilities. So it takes not only a lot of capital, but also huge resources in time to establish a system of agreeing goals and..
.