The much-better practice is to state the specific rights and obligations that affiliates have under the contract. I found similar information in this apparently-Israeli contract. A court might give special or even binding weight to recitals in a contract. Moreover, plaintiffs' own allegations make it clear that at the time of the buyout, the relationship between the parties was not one of trust, and reliance on Tzolis's representations as a fiduciary would not have been reasonable. Drafters should consider the extent — if any — to which the Receiving Party's contractors, affiliates, etc., should be permitted to receive Confidential Information.
This is sometimes done in "master" agreements that are available to the affiliates of one or more parties. For example, California Evidence Code § 622 provides: "The facts recited in a written instrument are conclusively presumed to be true as between the parties thereto, or their successors in interest; but this rule does not apply to the recital of a consideration." (Emphasis added; hat tip: Commenter "Kazu" at the Adams Drafting blog.) See also the notes to CD-25.2. When an agreement is made to settle a dispute, it can be really advantageous for the background ssection of the signed agreement to document that fact. According to plaintiffs, there had been numerous business disputes, between Tzolis and them, concerning the sublease. (a) The parties intend to use the Agreement as a pre-negotiated set of terms and conditions for one or more purchase orders, statements of work, or other specific agreements incorporating the Agreement by reference. This will be especially true if the Receiving Party's workforce includes so-called leased employees or other individuals working long-term in independent-contractor status.
In the same vein, to save time, contract drafters (and reviewers) can consider incorporating selected Common Draft sections, or even entire contract drafts, by reference and specifying any desired variations or modifications — this could be thought of as "drafting by exception" or even as like INCOTERMS on steroids.* * For clarity: The Common Draft project is not sponsored, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with the International Chamber of Commerce, which produces the INCOTERMS® 2010 rules. That's because doing so can result in destruction of the disclosing party's trade-secret rights in its confidential information after the end of the confidentiality period. An obligation to return or destroy Confidential Information might not be practical if (for example) Confidential Information is embodied in a deliverable (for example, custom-developed computer software, or a physical object) that the receiving party will have the right to keep on using; this might be the case in a services agreement.
Suggestion: If you incorporate one or more Common Draft provisions by reference, consider using your browser's "Save to PDF" or "Print to PDF" capability to preserve a copy of this deskbook for future reference. Receiving parties, of course, generally prefer to have fixed expiration dates for confidentiality obligations. PRO TIP: Unfortunately, sometimes parties forget about return-or-destruction obligations.
The period (i) beginning on the effective date of the Agreement and (ii) continuing until the information question qualifies for at least one exclusion from Confidential Information status under CD 18.104.22.168. CAUTION: Even disclosures made outside the Protected-Disclosure Period might still be subject to obligations of confidence under applicable law, for example, the laws governing protected health information or nonpublic personal financial information. (c) For the avoidance of doubt, the confidentiality obligations of the Agreement apply to all such copies or excerpts.