I just had an argument with "OAG" about having to fight my way through every single suggestion I make. Case in Point - I made several remarks about the contract we were going to send to the "West Coast Client" and laid out reasons for NOT changing a handful of issues that "New Company B" decided to change.
"OAG" tells me first thing this morning that they want to send the contract "AS IS" with out my changes to see what "West Coast Client" will say. The main reason for my changes is that I KNOW what "West Coast Client" will say about some of the items but even more troubling is that when they look at all of them as a whole they might wonder if they still want to do business with us. They may also wonder if I had even looked over the contract becuase of the blatently obvious issues should have been addressed by me, BUT THEY WERE!
HEre are some examples:
Here are my notes:
Issue #1
Legal Mumbo-jumbo-
With respect to each Application, "New Company B" shall receive as its sole compensation for the Services rendered and the rights granted to "West Coast Client" hereunder a royalty (the “Revenue Share”) in the amount of Net Sales of such Application and derivative Application Products as set forth on the applicable portion of Appendix B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Revenue Share shall be payable hereunder with respect to (i) Applications or Application Products used for promotional purposes or furnished free to the trade, press or for public relations use; or (ii) Applications or Application Products used for promotional purposes furnished free to distributors, sub-distributors, dealers, or others.
My Observation-
“…or furnished free” – was deleted from the contract. This should remain in the contract so that "West Coast Client" has the ability to furnish the listed outlets (the trade, press or for public relations use) a free copy of the application. "West Coast Client" is not going to ask the press to buy the game in order to review it.This is an industry practice that has been added (in some fashion or other)into every contract i've ever read.
NOTE: "New Company B" refuses to listen to this and think its a "ploy" by the "West Coast Client" to give away the game so that they don't have to pay us! They demand that it “…or furnished free” is removed from the contract entirly and will not sign it if it's in there.
Issue #2
Legal Mumbo-jumbo section of the contract is deleted by "New Company B" dealing with required insurance needed to do business between copanies.
My Observation-
This whole section was “Omitted” from the contract and needs to remain IN the contract as US companies will not do business with us if we do not have insurance. By ommiting this section we are saying to Sony that we do not have insurance and will not get insurance. This is not acceptable.
Note: "New Company B" claims they have insurance and that they could not open in HQ-Land if they did not have ninsurance, they see this section of the contract as "insulting".
FUCKING MORNONS. Nuff said.
Issue #3
Legal Mumbo-Jumbo
To the extent necessary to comply with applicable laws, rules and regulations of HQ-Land Country Name, "New Company B" agrees to pay to the relevant HQ-Land Country Name tax authority taxes at the applicable rate set forth in such laws, rules, and regulations.
“HQ-Land Country Name” –was added to this section and should not be there. The term “comply with applicable laws” will cover each countries laws and adding the express HQ-Land country into the contract detracts from the US laws which should also be adhered to as "West Coast Client" is an American business.
Issue #4
If "New Company B" shall commence an action, suit, or proceeding against "West Coast Client" concerning Revenue Share statements rendered or required to be rendered by "West Coast Client" to "New Company B" hereunder, the scope of that action, suit or proceeding shall be limited to a determination of the amount of Revenue Share, if any, payable to "New Company B" for the accounting periods in question, and "New Company B"'s sole remedy shall be the recovery of that Revenue Share, if any.
This paragraph was deleted from section “Issue 4”. Why? I don’t see this as detrimental to "New Company B", can someone explain why they think it should be deleted?
NOTE: no one has answered this question and i have sent 2 follow up e-mails about it. I've also asked "OAG" about it and from the look on her face when I ask she seems to indicate that she's either not asked the question or has been told not to ask anyone else about that question.Labels: boss, bullshit, bullshit job, legal issues, Stupid co-workers, Stupid Job, stupid people, What the fuck, work sucks |
