Clarity of contract. Or, rather, the lack thereof.
It might be the sign of a schemer (e.g., see any insurance policy).
Or, it might just be the lack of effort intermixed with the failure to appreciate that there’s a chance that something might go wrong.
But because we can’t read minds (well, most of the time; we know what those insurance carriers are up to), it’s a distinction without a difference.
Take, for example, a contract that provides that a fee is owed by you to a placement agency upon your hiring of a candidate. The agreement states that if a candidate departs within sixty days of hiring, the agency will exert efforts to find a replacement.
Sounds nice. But wait. What if you hire “Bob” on February 15 for a position to commence on June 1? There’s a pretty good chance that if Bob discovers that he doesn’t like working for you, it’s going to happen in June or July, well after the sort-of-guarantee has expired. And, even if you clarified the language such that the guarantee period begins upon commencement of services, if Bob leaves a day later, what good is it if the agency’s efforts, even their no-one-could-expect-better efforts, to find a replacement just don’t pan out?
Most people don’t like throwing good money after bad in a contract dispute. Clarifying the deal up front not only avoids the “bad money” problem, it changes the analysis of whether it pays to fight after you’ve been screwed, whether by a schemer or a lazy slug.
