← Back to CTR_003
Red-Team Simulation

Negotiation Brief

Employment Agreement — Senior ML Engineer · vs. Babatunde I. Adesanya

Contract overview

3 contested

Counterparty profile

Babatunde I. Adesanya

  • Sector: Commercial freight & logistics (Nigeria)
  • Negotiating posture: assertive; in-house counsel-led
  • Prior dealings: none on record with the firm

Contested clauses

  1. §4 — Term

    High

    Term

  2. §6 — Liquidated Damages

    Critical

    Liquidated Damages

  3. §5 — Indemnification

    Medium

    Indemnification

Negotiation play-by-play

CONTESTED / 01§4 — Term

Counterparty likely position

NorthRail's general counsel will argue that 7-year confidentiality reflects industry norm given the proprietary routing algorithms involved and will resist any reduction below 5 years.

Their reasoning: Logistics operators commonly hold competitive route data as trade secrets with multi-decade lifecycles; they will frame 7 years as a floor, not a ceiling.

Our recommended fallback

Tiered term: 3 years for general Confidential Information, 5 years for information specifically marked 'Trade Secret' on disclosure.

Why it works: Concedes longer protection only on the narrow class of information NorthRail actually cares about, while keeping the firm's 3-year default for the bulk of routine commercial information.

CONTESTED / 02§6 — Liquidated Damages

Counterparty likely position

NorthRail will resist removing liquidated damages entirely and may attempt to reframe ₦25M as a 'genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Their reasoning: They want a credible deterrent. Internal counsel knows actual damages from disclosure are hard to prove.

Our recommended fallback

Strike liquidated damages; replace with a single aggregate liability cap of ₦15M and a mutual obligation to notify within 5 business days of any suspected breach to allow cure.

Why it works: Gives NorthRail a meaningful financial backstop and a faster cure mechanism, while removing the per-occurrence cumulative exposure and the enforceability risk under Nigerian penalty doctrine.

CONTESTED / 03§5 — Indemnification

Counterparty likely position

Counterparty will insist on uncapped indemnity for breaches involving wilful misconduct or fraud and may agree to caps only for negligence.

Their reasoning: Standard counterparty position — protects them against the worst-case scenario without conceding the wider clause.

Our recommended fallback

Cap indemnification at the greater of ₦10M or fees paid under the underlying engagement; carve out wilful misconduct and fraud from the cap.

Why it works: Aligns with the firm's playbook ceiling while accepting the carve-out NorthRail is most likely to push for — a faster path to signature.

Overall strategy

Open by accepting governing law and definitional clauses without redlines — this signals good faith and front-loads the agreement. Then bundle §4 (Term), §5 (Indemnity), and §6 (Liquidated Damages) into one negotiation block, since they are interlocking risk-allocation provisions. Lead with the §6 strike — it is the most legally vulnerable on enforceability grounds — and concede the longer trade-secret tier on §4 in exchange. Hold the indemnification cap firmly; this is the firm's clearest red line based on the last 12 NDAs.

Apply Fallbacks to Draft →