The Six Clauses in a Service Agreement That Actually Cost You Money
I do not draft contracts. I read them afterwards, usually because a receivable has been sitting at 120 days, or because a purchaser’s lawyer has asked for something in due diligence that the client cannot produce.
From that seat the same six clauses come up again and again. Not the legally interesting ones. The ones with a dollar figure attached.
Everything below is the commercial read: what a clause does to your margin, your receivables and your valuation. Where the answer is genuinely a legal question, I say so and stop, because I am an accountant and that is where my usefulness ends.
1. Scope, and the change order nobody wrote
Scope is the clause that quietly destroys margin on service work. The contract describes a deliverable in two sentences. The client asks for one more round of revisions, then a second stakeholder joins the call and asks for something that was never discussed, and you do it because the relationship matters.
None of that is a legal failure. It is a pricing failure that a contract could have caught. The mechanism that catches it is a written change process: a description of what is included, a statement that anything outside it is quoted separately, and a requirement that changes be agreed in writing before work starts.
The cost of not having it shows up as realisation rate. If you quoted 40 hours and delivered 62, your effective rate fell by a third and no invoice records that it happened. I go through how to price the work in the first place in pricing your services in Canada.
2. Payment terms
Payment terms are a whole subject on their own and I have given them their own article in payment terms that actually get you paid.
The short version for this list: net 30 with no deposit, no interest provision and no right to stop work is not a payment clause, it is a hope. Every one of those three levers is negotiable at the start of a relationship and almost impossible to add once the work is underway.
3. Limitation of liability
This is the clause where a business owner is making a bet without knowing the size of it. A liability cap sets the maximum you can be held to if something goes wrong. Uncapped, your exposure on a $20,000 engagement is whatever the client’s losses turn out to be.
Whether a particular cap holds up is a legal question and depends on the wording and the circumstances. Ask a lawyer. What I can tell you is the commercial consequence of the answer, because it is the same conversation I have with clients about insurance limits.
| Cap set at the fee | Cap at a multiple of the fee | No cap | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Worst-case exposure | Roughly the contract value | A known, budgeted number | Unbounded |
| Effect on your insurance conversation | Straightforward | Straightforward | Insurer will want detail |
| What the client usually says | Pushback on large engagements | Often accepted | Preferred by the client |
| Where it hurts | Nowhere, until a claim exceeds it | Nowhere | In a single bad year |
A cap is not a substitute for coverage. It works alongside it, and the two numbers should be chosen together rather than one by the lawyer and one by the broker. I set out the coverage side in insurance for a small business in Canada.
4. Who owns the deliverable
This one costs real money at sale and almost nothing to fix at the start.
Under section 13 of the Copyright Act, the author of a work is the first owner of the copyright in it, and an assignment is only valid if it is in writing and signed. An employer is the first owner of work an employee makes in the course of employment, absent an agreement to the contrary. A contractor is not an employee, which is exactly where the gap opens up.
So if you deliver code, design, copy or drawings and the agreement is silent, the client may not own what they think they paid for, and you may not own what you think you can reuse. CIPO’s copyright material covers what copyright protects. I go through the ownership defaults in detail in who owns the work.
The valuation angle: a buyer doing diligence on your business will ask for signed assignments covering the material you are selling. Missing assignments do not usually kill a deal. They get resolved with a holdback, which means you are funding your own paperwork failure out of the purchase price.
5. Termination
Read the termination clause as a cash flow document. Three questions:
How much notice does the client have to give you, and does that notice period cover the fixed costs you carry for this client? Is work already performed but not invoiced payable on termination? Can you terminate, or have you signed yourself into a relationship you cannot exit if the client stops paying?
The last one matters most for anyone whose revenue concentrates in a few accounts. If one client is 40% of your revenue, a 30 day termination right in their favour and none in yours is a real risk sitting in a drawer. Freelancer financial planning in Ottawa deals with the concentration problem itself.
6. Dispute resolution, governing law and the clock
Three small items that get skimmed and then decide what a claim is worth.
Governing law and forum determine where you would have to go to enforce. A clause naming another province turns a $30,000 dispute into an uneconomic one.
An arbitration clause takes you out of the public court system. Faster and private, usually, but you pay the arbitrator and you generally give up the appeal. Whether that trade is right for your deal is a question for counsel.
And the clock runs whether or not you are ready. Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 sets a basic two year limitation period running from discovery of the claim, with an ultimate period beyond that. Waiting out a slow-paying client is a strategy with an expiry date, which is one reason the escalation ladder in when a client will not pay starts earlier than most owners expect.
The claims you made to win the work
One thing owners forget: the performance promises in your proposal are also representations. Marketing and performance claims sit under the Competition Act, and the Competition Bureau publishes guidance for businesses on what it expects. Do not write a guarantee into a contract that your operations cannot deliver.
When to spend money on a lawyer
Repeat, low-value, standard work?
├─ Yes → one reviewed template, reused. Cheapest per deal.
└─ No
├─ Client's paper, and you cannot change it?
│ → pay for a review of the cap and the IP clause only
├─ Deal is material to the business, or bespoke?
│ → drafted, not a template
└─ IP, exclusivity or a personal guarantee involved?
→ drafted, and read the guarantee twice
The template that gets reviewed once and used fifty times is the best value in this whole area. The false economy is a free template used for a deal large enough to hurt you.
If you are putting a service agreement in front of clients and want the commercial side reviewed, the pricing, the cap against your insurance, the receivable profile it creates, get in touch and we will go through it before your lawyer does the drafting. General federal guidance on operating a business is collected at doing business in Canada.
Written by