Contracts with suppliers: are you leaving money on the table?
9 December 2024
Contracts with suppliers: are you leaving money on the table?
From office supplies to IT infrastructure and essential components, businesses of all sizes enter contracts to purchase goods and services.
For each business a small number of these will be key strategic relationships, and the contracts with these suppliers will likely receive attention from the executive team or the board. The majority of purchases, however, will be non-strategic and/ or low value in nature. Resource constraints mean that standard terms and conditions presented with the supplier’s quote will often be overlooked, and a contract entered into with neither review nor negotiation. This can lead to unpleasant surprises when the business wants to exit the contract, resist a price increase or claim compensation for poor performance.
Examples of contractual provisions that can cause revenue leakage if not checked include:
Payment terms:
- Suppliers’ standard terms often include short payment terms. Can your accounts payable processes meet their requirements? If not, you risk being late in paying. Can you extend the payment terms to improve your cashflow?
- What is the interest rate on late payment? If the contract does not specify, the law provides a default of 8% above base rate. It is common for purchasers to request a lower rate.
- Does the contract entitle you to set off amounts owed by the supplier against payments for the contract goods or services?
- Is there a mechanism for changing the price? Does this require both parties’ agreement, or is it automatic (e.g. an annual upwards ratchet?)
Performance management:
- Are there clear timescales for delivery of goods and services, and remedies for delays?
- In longer-term contracts for services, chronic underperformance is a material risk. Including service levels and service credits can incentivise performance and provide a straightforward financial remedy for non-compliance.
- Where a supplier is supporting the purchaser to deliver innovative or improved outcomes, “pain-share/ gain-share” mechanisms can be included in the contract to allocate financial risks and make payment conditional on delivery.
Termination rights:
- How can you exit the contract if performance is poor or you want to switch supplier?
- Are there key dates or deadlines for giving notice? Standard terms and conditions often roll over automatically, locking in the purchaser for another fixed period.
Liability and indemnities:
- What are your liabilities? In simple contracts, a purchaser’s only enforceable obligation may be to pay the purchase price. In more complex relationships there may be additional obligations regarding use of the supplier’s tools, know-how or brand name.
- Even contracts for low-value items can include disproportionate liabilities for the purchaser. These should be identified and, where appropriate challenged.
Action Points for Purchasers
While there can be no “one-size fits all” approach to a business’s purchasing contracts, the following process steps can improve oversight and management of this important cost area.
- Map your suppliers: A classic procurement model segments suppliers along two axes: the value of the contract (low/high) and the number of available suppliers (few/ many). This is a useful starting point for a risk-based allocation of management and legal resources.
- Implement rules for review: Low value commodity contracts may require only a check of four or five key clauses to secure “quick wins” and avoid traps. Long-term, strategic or partnership type arrangements will likely merit a more bespoke contract and detailed negotiation.
- Track key dates: including price reviews, deadlines for notice of termination or renewal, contract expiry dates.
- Monitor performance: Pro-actively enforce the contract, including service credits or other financial remedies.
How Boardside can help
Boardside Law’s commercial lawyers have significant in-house experience working with businesses to optimise their purchasing arrangements and minimise supply chain risk. Our support services include reviewing third party terms, preparing bespoke purchase contract templates and training management and operational teams on contracting processes.
Please share Boardside's expertise and insights with colleagues and associates. Thank you.
Working closely with you, we can navigate the hurdles you face, to build a stronger business and to achieve commercial advantage. Call us for an initial conversation on 0330 0949338
As part of its ongoing corporate transparency reforms, Companies House is introducing two important compliance requirements that directors and company secretaries should be aware of, one immediate, and one longer-term. Director ID Verification – Coming This Autumn From Autumn 2025, all company directors will be legally required to verify their identity with Companies House. This is part of the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, aimed at reducing fraud and improving corporate accountability. The process will involve confirming your identity through the Companies House portal or via an authorised third party. For UK nationals with a passport and standard secondary ID, the process is expected to be quick and fully digital. Directors who fail to verify their identity will be committing an offence and may be unable to act in that capacity until verification is complete. Boardside Law will become an authorised provider to carry out this process on behalf of clients. If this would be of interest to you, please let us know. Paper Accounts to Be Phased Out by April 2027 From 1 April 2027, Companies House will no longer accept paper accounts. All companies, including micro-entities and dormant companies, will be required to file accounts using compatible accounting software. This applies to: Audited and unaudited accounts Limited companies, LLPs and charitable entities Group accounts and subsidiaries Although the change is nearly two years away, we recommend that companies with financial year ends of 31 December or 31 March treat the 2026 accounting period as the transition year. This allows time to get familiar with digital filing tools ahead of the April 2027 deadline. A full list of compatible software providers is available here: gov.uk/software-company-accounts/y/audited/group There are also separate links for LLPs and charities. What You Should Do Now Directors: Watch out for further announcements about ID verification and ensure you complete this when required. Company Secretaries / Finance Teams: Review your current filing method and speak to your accountant about moving to compliant software if you haven’t already. If you would like advice on preparing your company for these reforms, or support with managing director filings or company secretarial duties, the Boardside team is here to help.
Whistleblowing: Reform on the Horizon
The Government is backing a proposed major amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that would render certain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) unenforceable. Specifically, the amendment targets clauses that prevent individuals from speaking out about unlawful behaviour, such as harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct or bullying. This shift follows sustained criticism of how NDAs have been used to cover up workplace misconduct and protect serial offenders, particularly in high-profile sectors like media, technology and education. While the aim is to protect victims, the change could have unintended consequences for employers. If confidentiality can no longer be assured, some employers may be less inclined to settle disputes at all, which could in itself drive more claims to an Employment Tribunal. The proposals in terms of voiding certain agreements would also extend to employment contracts and internal policies, not just settlement agreements. What Is Changing? The proposed reform (an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill), which was tabled in Parliament on 7 July 2025, would: void any contractual clause that seeks to prevent a person from disclosing misconduct; apply not only to settlement agreements but also, potentially, to employment contracts, policy documents, and confidentiality agreements; introduce civil penalties for employers or advisers who breach the new provisions. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner has stated that the purpose is to prevent NDAs from being used as “gagging clauses” that silence victims. Why This Matters for Employers: Fewer settlements? Without confidentiality, some employers may feel less secure in offering financial settlements to resolve complaints. Loss of control over reputation management: Public disclosure could increase the reputational risks for employers, particularly in unresolved or disputed allegations. Employee voice strengthened: The change would empower employees to speak out, but some may prefer private resolution. Removing this option may reduce flexibility. Boardside's View: We support the main aim of increasing transparency and preventing misuse of legal tool agreements which genuinely help parties resolve employment-based issues. We certainly accept that employers should not be allowed to abuse their positions. However, we share concerns that an outright ban may discourage settlement and create uncertainty for all parties. Action Points: Review all current template agreements and HR policies. Train HR teams and line managers on the lawful use of confidentiality provisions. Keep a close eye on the final form of the legislation as it progresses through Parliament. Boardside Law can support you in adapting your internal documents and approach to reflect the likely changes, as well as keeping you updated on the final wording and timeline of implementation. Contact us
AI and algorithmic decision-making is now deeply embedded in recruitment, performance tracking, and even disciplinary decisions. But the legal risks around automated decision-making is still evolving, and employers face serious compliance risks. What does the law say? Under UK GDPR, employees have the right not to be subject to solely automated decisions that have a significant effect on them. This includes decisions about recruitment (for example, CV screening by AI), disciplinary or capability outcomes, and performance rankings. Where such processing occurs, employers must: Provide meaningful information about the logic involved. Offer the right to obtain human intervention. Enable the individual to contest the decision. Key Risks Discrimination: biased data can lead to unlawful outcomes. Lack of transparency and explainability: AI systems are often ‘black boxes’, making it difficult to explain how decisions are made. Lack of documentation: employers may struggle to prove compliance without a proper audit trail. Failure to notify or offer human review. What employers should do Audit your use of AI tools in HR processes. Ensure there is always a human in the loop. Ensure transparency and accountability mechanisms are in place. Update internal data protection policies and privacy notices. Provide training to HR and senior leadership on AI compliance and ethical considerations. Boardside can support you in designing ethical and legally compliant approaches to AI in the workplace. Call us on 0330 0949338
What You Need to Know Before 22 July
Immigration Reforms: What Employers Need to Know
The Right to Disconnect: Coming Soon to a Workplace Near You…. Or Not?
Sex, Gender and the Workplace: The UK Supreme Court Clarifies the Law
6 April 2025 is a key date for those businesses that sell products and/or services to the general public.
Neonatal Care Leave and Pay