≡ Menu

After dodging a bullet, maybe Wal-Mart will tweak its language to say “we reserve the right” instead of “we will”

Wal-Mart requires its suppliers to agree to a code of conduct. It was sued, in California, by employees of suppliers in various Third World countries, on grounds that • the retail giant had failed to police the suppliers’ compliance with the code’s standards, and • the employees were allegedly third-party beneficiaries of those standards.

Wal-Mart succeeded in having the case dismissed, on grounds that it did not undertake to police compliance, and therefore had no duty to do so; consequently, the foreign employees were not third-party beneficiaries. See Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 08-55706 (9th Cir. Jul. 10, 2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to state a claim).

The language of Wal-Mart’s code of conduct could have used some tweaking to make its winning point more conspicuously.

The code of conduct’s standards provision said that “Wal-Mart or a third party designated by Wal-Mart will undertake affirmative measures, such as on-site inspection of production facilities, to implement and monitor said standards” (emphasis added). A supplier’s noncompliance with the standards could lead to Wal-Mart’s canceling orders and/or terminating its relationship with the supplier.

Both the trial court and the appeals court held that, in context, this did not constitute a commitment on Wal-Mart’s part. The appellate court said:

The language and structure of the agreement show that Wal-Mart reserved the right to inspect the suppliers, but did not adopt a duty to inspect them.

The language on which Plaintiffs rely is found in a paragraph entitled “Right of Inspection,” contained in a two-page section entitled “Standards for Suppliers.”

And after stating Wal-Mart’s intention to enforce the Standards through monitoring, the paragraph elaborates the potential consequences of a supplier’s failure to comply with the Standards—Wal-Mart may cancel orders and cease doing business with that supplier—but contains no comparable adverse consequences for Wal-Mart if Wal-Mart does not monitor that supplier.

Because, as we view the supply contracts, Wal-Mart made no promise to monitor the suppliers, no such promise flows to Plaintiffs as third-party beneficiaries.

Id., slip op. at 8619 (extra paragraphing added).

The lesson here: In contracts and related documents, you might not want to say “we will do X,” if what you really mean is “we reserve the right to do X.”

Comments on this entry are closed.

On Contracts is Stephen Fry proof thanks to caching by WP Super Cache