sure-scale/doc-haus/contract-risk-checklist

Review every contract against all twelve areas below. Before you start, turn the twelve areas into an explicit checklist with the todowrite tool — one item per area — and answer each item present / absent / deviating rather than reviewing from memory, because a single skipped area can let an off-market term through. Mark an area completed only once you have located its governing clause (or confirmed it has none); an unresolved area stays in_progress. For each area: state what the contract says, cite the governing clause as [<Document> § <section>] (or note its absence — a missing clause is a finding, not a pass), and flag anything matching the red-flag patterns. Establish the governing-law clause first and qualify jurisdiction-sensitive findings against the matter's jurisdiction pack. For balanced market positions and fallback ladders per area, load the clause-library skill. A mapping of CUAD's 41-category clause taxonomy onto these twelve areas is in references/cuad-taxonomy.md.

<checklist>

1. Liability

Inspect: caps, exclusions, carve-outs, mutuality, super-caps for sensitive exposure.

What bad looks like:

• Carve-outs from the cap so broad they swallow it — "any breach of this

Agreement," all indemnification obligations, or all confidentiality breaches uncapped in one direction.

• One party's liability uncapped while the other's is capped.
• A cap far below realistic exposure (one month's fees) with no separate

super-cap where the deal involves sensitive data or high-value IP.

2. Indemnification

Inspect: scope, triggers, who indemnifies whom, defense and settlement control, relationship to the liability cap.

What bad looks like:

• One-way indemnity in a deal where both sides create risk.
• Indemnity triggered by "any breach of this Agreement," converting every

contract claim into an uncapped indemnified claim.

• Indemnitee controls defense and may settle at the indemnitor's cost without

the indemnitor's consent.

• Indemnity covering first-party (direct) claims, not just third-party claims;

or no IP-infringement indemnity from the provider in a technology deal.

3. Termination

Inspect: for cause, for convenience, notice periods, cure rights, renewal mechanics, effect on fees and data.

What bad looks like:

• Evergreen auto-renewal with a short or early opt-out window (non-renewal

notice due 90+ days before renewal) that is easy to miss.

• One party may terminate for convenience but the other cannot; or cure

periods granted to only one side.

• Termination accelerates all remaining committed fees regardless of cause.
• No wind-down, transition assistance, or data-return obligation on exit.

4. Payment

Inspect: amounts, schedule, late fees, set-off, escalation, currency, taxes, refundability.

What bad looks like:

• Unilateral price escalation — fees change on notice with no cap and no

corresponding termination right.

• All fees non-refundable even where the provider is in breach; or payment

obligations that survive termination regardless of cause.

• Set-off prohibited for one party while the other keeps broad set-off or

withholding rights.

• All taxes and gross-up obligations shifted to one party.

5. Intellectual property

Inspect: ownership, license scope, work product, feedback and data rights, residuals.

What bad looks like:

• Assignment of pre-existing IP, or of improvements to it, to the other side.
• Customer-paid work product owned by the provider, or joint ownership with no

exploitation and accounting rules.

• A license to customer data or feedback broader than needed to operate the

service (perpetual, irrevocable, "any purpose").

• License grants that are silently perpetual or irrevocable where the

commercial intent is term-limited.

6. Confidentiality

Inspect: definition, duration, exclusions, permitted disclosures, return/destruction, adjacent restrictive covenants (non-solicit, non-compete, exclusivity).

What bad looks like:

• One-way obligations where both parties disclose.
• Marking-only definition with no reasonable-person catch-all; or a residuals

clause permitting use of anything retained in unaided memory.

• Compelled-disclosure permission with no notice or minimization obligation.
• Restrictive covenants smuggled in: no-hire (vs. no-solicit) provisions,

non-competes, or exclusivity beyond the deal's scope — enforceability is highly jurisdiction-dependent; qualify against the matter's pack.

7. Warranties

Inspect: express warranties, disclaimers, duration, remedies for breach.

What bad looks like:

• "As is" disclaimer that reaches the core service commitment itself.
• Warranty remedy that is illusory — sole remedy is re-performance at the

warrantor's discretion with no refund backstop.

• One-sided compliance-with-laws or non-infringement warranties.
• Disclaimers of implied warranties without the conspicuousness or scope

limits some jurisdictions require — qualify; do not assert a specific rule.

8. Limitation of remedies

Inspect: exclusive remedies, consequential-damages waivers, liquidated damages, who may enforce.

What bad looks like:

• Consequential-damages waiver applied one-way.
• Waiver listing "lost profits" without limiting it to consequential losses —

lost profits can be direct damages, so this quietly guts direct recovery.

• An exclusive remedy that can fail of its essential purpose with nothing

behind it.

• Liquidated damages that look punitive rather than a genuine pre-estimate of

loss — enforceability varies by jurisdiction; qualify.

9. Assignment and change of control

Inspect: consent requirements, deemed-assignment language, change-of-control triggers, affiliate and sale-of-business carve-outs.

What bad looks like:

• Consent withholdable in sole discretion, combined with a deemed-assignment

clause making any change of control a breach — a hidden M&A blocker.

• One side assigns freely while the other needs consent.
• Termination right triggered by a change of control of one party only.
• No carve-out for assignment to affiliates or in connection with a sale of

substantially all assets.

10. Governing law and dispute resolution

Inspect: governing law, venue, arbitration, jury waiver, fee shifting, equitable relief.

What bad looks like:

• Counterparty home-court stack: their governing law, exclusive venue in their

forum, and a jury waiver together.

• Mandatory arbitration with no carve-out to seek injunctive relief for

confidentiality or IP breaches.

• One-way fee shifting (loser pays only when one side wins).
• Shortened limitations periods or class waivers — enforceability varies by

jurisdiction; qualify.

11. Force majeure

Inspect: covered events, obligations during the event, notice and mitigation, exit rights.

What bad looks like:

• Coverage of "economic hardship," market changes, or supplier cost increases

— turning ordinary business risk into an excuse for non-performance.

• Only one party's performance excused.
• No right to terminate after a prolonged event (commonly 30-90 days).
• No notice or mitigation obligation on the party invoking it; or payment

obligations excused alongside performance.

12. Data protection

Inspect: controller/processor roles, security obligations, breach notice, subprocessors, international transfers.

What bad looks like:

• Processing roles unassigned, or a processor granted rights to use personal

data for its own purposes.

• Breach notification replaced by a long fixed window or omitted entirely.
• No subprocessor flow-down, approval, or audit mechanism.
• International transfers unaddressed where data will cross borders — the

required mechanism depends on the jurisdictions involved; check the matter's jurisdiction pack rather than assuming one regime.

</checklist>

These red-flag patterns are US commercial-market reference points, not legal standards; verify jurisdiction-sensitive items against the matter's jurisdiction pack before presenting them as findings.

<severity> Grade each area with one of four severities so the review reads as a triaged register, not a flat list. Use the same ladder for every area; the area's red-flag patterns above tell you what "off-market" looks like, this tells you how hard to push:

• critical — off-market or missing in a way that exposes the client to

uncapped, unrecoverable, or deal-breaking risk (a cap-swallowing carve-out, a one-way uncapped indemnity, no IP-infringement indemnity in a technology deal). Must be fixed before signing.

• high — a materially unfavorable term, or a protection a contract of this

type should always carry but does not (no termination-for-cause cure right, no data-return on exit). Fix, or record an explicit business decision to accept it.

• medium — a negotiable deviation worth raising that the client can live with

if traded for something else.

• low — cosmetic, market-standard with a minor wrinkle, or favorable to the

client; logged so coverage of the area is auditable.

When a term sits between two severities, take the higher one — an over-graded term costs the lawyer seconds to dismiss; an under-graded one goes unread into the signed agreement. An entirely-absent protection is graded on the exposure its absence creates, not downgraded for being a gap rather than bad language. </severity>