Bobadilla v. The Election Season Ick
What happens to your service agreements when a vendor, contractor, or key person gets swept up in election-year disruption? You look for the contract provisions that help.
Election cycles create predictable disruptions to vendor and contractor performance. You’ll see key personnel pulled into campaign activity, businesses taking public political stances affecting their client relationships, typical business communication boundaries being blurred, and general operational turbulence. These all accompany a high-stakes election. If your service agreements don't address what happens when a vendor's performance, or your perception of them, suffers for reasons unrelated to their capability, you're managing that disruption with no contractual tools.
This is about contract structure, not politics.
Most service agreements are written for normal operating conditions – as they should be. They’ll describe what the vendor delivers, what you pay, when it's due, and what happens when there's a clear breach. Less often do we see anything in writing about the messier situation: a vendor who is technically performing but whose principal operator is consumed by other activity, or a contractor whose public political activity creates a problem for your business relationship with your own clients, or a consulting firm that takes a prominent public stance that conflicts with your values or your client base.
These situations arise in every election cycle, but now we’re looking to leverage agreement language around termination (typically by the time clients come to be they want all the way out).
The basic idea in most of the contracts you’ll look at, is that you can terminate for no reason, or a reason. Logical, and yet wildly unhelpful as explanations go.
What's the difference between termination for cause and termination for convenience?
When terminating for cause, you’ll need to identify a specific violation of the agreement by the other party. They didn't deliver work. They missed deadlines. They violated confidentiality obligations. The breach usually has to be material (a big deal to the average person, the size of your personal icky feelings is not a factor). You’ll likely also see notice requirements and an “opportunity to cure” before termination takes effect. If the vendor comes back into compliance, the option to terminate may go away.
The takeaway here – don’t let it fester. If you’re looking at a material breach, document it, communicate it, and get it fixed. Your vendor can’t read your mind, and many times people aren’t quite as direct as they think they were in that phone call/email/text/meeting.
Termination for convenience allows you to end the agreement without proving a breach. You pay whatever is owed for work already performed, provide the required notice period, and the relationship ends. No allegation of wrongdoing required and you are not obligated to explain yourself.
Most small business service agreements don't include termination for convenience. They were drafted from the vendor's perspective or using a template that favored the service provider, and they only allow termination when something has gone wrong in a provable way. When the problem is clear-cut that’s an easy ask. Not so much when the problem is that the relationship has simply become untenable for reasons that don't fit neatly into a breach analysis.
During an election cycle, when vendor behavior can become unpredictable in ways that are hard to categorize as breach, that flexibility is valuable but termination for cause may be a real option too. Not sure? Talk to your attorney.
What is a key person clause and when does it matter?
Many service agreements, particularly for consulting, professional services, and creative work, are really agreements with a specific person or team rather than an organization. The firm's name is on the contract, but the quality of the deliverable depends on who is doing the work.
A key person clause identifies the specific individual or individuals whose involvement is essential to the engagement, and it gives you a right to exit or renegotiate if that person is no longer the primary point of contact on your work. Without one, a vendor can reassign your account to someone else while continuing to collect under the agreement, and your only remedy is a breach theory that may be hard to establish if the work is technically being delivered, just not as well as it was before.
During election season specifically, key persons get pulled in directions that can significantly reduce their available attention. A principal who is running for office, managing a campaign, or heavily involved in political organizing may still be nominally on your account while contributing far less to the actual work. A key person clause addresses that directly by tying the agreement's terms to the continued involvement of the person whose expertise and relationship you actually paid for.
What about vendors whose public conduct creates problems for your business?
This is the scenario that's hardest to handle without advance planning.
When a vendor or contractor takes a public political stance that conflicts with your values, your client relationships, or your business positioning, nothing in their work has technically changed but the relationship is fractured. They're hitting their deliverables. But the association is creating friction and distraction you didn't sign up for.
Without a morality clause or a reputational harm provision in your agreement, your legal options are probably limited. That doesn’t mean your commercial options are (your lawyer should also tell you that you don’t always need to get “legal”). Be strategic here and lean on your productive working relationship and its mutual value. Maybe the vendor as no idea it’s an issue. Maybe it isn’t working for them either. If the commercial path doesn’t work, you can try to negotiate an early exit, which the vendor may or may not agree to. You can find a technical breach to hang your termination on, which may or may not exist. Or you can wait out the term of the agreement while managing the friction however you can.
For your next negotiation or renewal, consider whether you need one of these clauses which go by various names: morality clauses, conduct clauses, reputational harm provisions, or public conduct provisions. They establish a right to terminate if the vendor's public conduct, statements, or actions materially and adversely affect your business or reputation. They're more common in contracts with high-profile individuals and media-facing relationships than in standard service agreements, but the election cycle is a reasonable time to consider whether they belong in yours. You’ve earned a great reputation that’s just as worthy of protection as your product quality.
While you’re considering, remember these clauses can also work against you. If you're the vendor or contractor in a relationship, the other party may have the same right to exit if your conduct creates reputational friction for them. Election season (and the internet) cuts both ways.
A practical checklist for service agreement review before November 3
• Does your agreement with key vendors include termination for convenience? If not, consider whether the relationship warrants adding one at the next renewal.
• Is there a key person identified in the agreement? If the value of the engagement is tied to specific individuals, that should be documented.
• How is material breach defined in the agreement? Is political distraction that degrades performance likely to rise to that level, or does your current definition require something more specific?
• What is the notice period for termination? If you need to exit a relationship that isn't working, how long are you committed before you can be free of it?
• Does your own standard client agreement include these provisions from the other side? If your clients have the right to exit you for convenience with reasonable notice, that's information worth having before November 3.
None of this requires anticipating any specific political outcome. The point is that election cycles create conditions where vendor relationships can become complicated in ways that normal operating conditions don't, and having the contractual tools to manage those complications is preferable to discovering you don't have them after the situation has already developed.
- m
Contract structure is mostly invisible until you need it. Subscribe below and the pieces that help you build it in advance will come to your inbox.
