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.