My company is presently in contract negotiations with a data center in the Seattle area. The only thing holding up the deal is one sentence in the service agreement which states that the data center has final say over the disposition of disputed charges. Our legal team is interpreting this to mean that we waive our right to challenge the bill in court. We've sought clarification to ensure we are interpreting the statement correctly, but all the data center will say is, "We absolutely must have the final decision on disputes." None of our other service agreements (with anybody) contain such a clause. Has anybody else ever encountered this?
It should be noted that this is not exactly a small, mom-and-pop operation we're talking about. This particular data center has the likes of Microsoft, Boeing, and various professional sports teams as its clients. They insist everyone has the same contract, but I cannot believe for one minute that such large and established corporations would ever sign away their rights like that.
From my interpretation of it, basically after a discussion, they have the final say on how it would stand.
This wouldn't then stop you contesting what their final position was via the legal system, purely that it provides a very well defined demarcation of responsibility and accountability in the business relationship.
Upon further discussion with the facility, it seems they intend for this clause to cover only charges that are in the contract. That is, the agreement says they can charge us X, they do so, and we dispute it. We have no issue with that. If it's in the contract then we are agreeing to it. The problem is that the contract doesn't actually contain this limitation. As written, it applies to ALL disputes. In other words, the contract doesn't say they can charge us X, they do so anyway, we dispute it, and they say it's legitimate. That's not cool with us. Fortunately, they were willing to alter the contract's wording to include the limitation.
He one I like is that you have to leave a credit card on file with them. Should you ever object to a charge thay make you have to pay them $200.
My job is to read the TOS -- a painful as it is. Remember, posession in 9/10 of the law. If they have your money it's a sure thing you won't sue unless you both are in the same jurisdiction -- it's just too doggone expensive.
Strange contract clause
