Responsibility for Representatives
Contract Type:

Each party shall procure that its Representatives comply with the restrictions contained in this Agreement as if they were a party to this Agreement. Each party shall be liable for any breach of this Agreement by its Representatives. For the purposes of this clause, "Representatives" means directors, employees, agents, consultants and professional advisers.

Click to Copy


This clause specifies that:

1) Each party to the agreement must ensure that their representatives - defined as directors, employees, agents, consultants and professional advisors - comply fully with all restrictions, obligations and terms contained within the agreement. I.e. the parties must strictly enforce the agreement standards over anyone operating on their behalf or in connection with them.

2) Each party will be held legally liable for any breach of the agreement by their representatives. I.e. they face the consequences of any non-compliance with or violation of agreement terms by their associates as if the party had breached those terms themselves.

3) In short, parties cannot avoid their own responsibilities and potential liabilities under the agreement by acting through representatives. They remain accountable for overseeing compliance and will be deemed culpable for any failures in this by their representatives as if they were directly responsible. Responsibility cannot be shifted.

Key purposes and rationale for including responsibility for representatives clauses are:    

1) Closing loopholes: Ensuring parties cannot avoid liability for agreement breaches by asserting those breaches were committed by their representatives, not by them directly. Responsibility cannot be evaded through technicalities of operation or corporate structure. Accountability is imposed at source.

2) Discouraging irresponsibility: Making parties liable for their representatives' conduct deters poor oversight, enforcement or irresponsible appointment of representatives by attaching meaningful consequences. Parties are motivated to choose representatives carefully and monitor compliance closely.

3) Consistency: Applying agreement terms and accountability standards consistently to both parties and their representatives helps ensure responsibilities and compliance expectations do not vary based on structure or nature of operations. Rigorous and even-handed governance is aimed for.  

4) Shared understanding: Specifying parties' responsibilities over their own representatives helps ensure a common understanding that agreement obligations cannot be avoided through transferring responsibility to associates. No unilateral interpretations are relied upon. Expectations are aligned.

5) Direct resolution: Where breaches occur, making each party liable for their own representatives' conduct gives a clear route for remedy and resolution between main parties to the agreement. Disputes can be addressed at source.

6) Curbing spread: Strict responsibility aims to motivate maximum possible containment of any breach by encouraging oversight over all those operating in connection with parties to an agreement - direct or indirect. Spread of issues is discouraged through imposing consequences at the top. Compliance is motivated through accountability, not instruction alone.

7) Formality: Representations are legally defined to avoid ambiguity over who is deemed responsible and under what specific obligations. Rigor aims for consistent and prudent governance, with no room for assumption. Accountability relies on clarity.

History of the clause (for the geeks)

Early trade relied substantially on personal bonds of trust and integrity between merchants themselves, with little provision for enforcing standards over secondary actors operating on their behalf but at a distance. However, as commerce expanded globally and corporate structures grew more complex, it became increasingly difficult to oversee compliance or contain issues emerging from irresponsibility in dispersed networks through individual duty and diligence alone. Legitimacy began to look to system over contact, but mechanism still relied on conscience to effect reasonable outcomes.

Into the 19th century, some agreements started imposing general obligations of compliance over representatives to curb threats from excess beyond sight, balancing functionality with accountability. However, recognition remained that responsibility alone achieves little without capacity and practical wisdom to determine how duties should be discharged or consequence assessed in each context. Regulation depended on moderation to find credibility or continuity. Equity looked to aligning interests through cooperation wherever workable, not concentrating control.

By the early 20th century, commercial contracts commonly mandated strict liability over representatives to facilitate freer exchange between large-scale organizations, enabling opportunity whilst retaining oversight. However, prudent terms still relied substantially on shared understanding between parties over reasonable provision and restraint - practical judgement, not imposition of claims alone. Effectiveness and fairness followed where regulation found moderation through recognising reciprocal consequence, not evading genuine accountability. Responsibility achieved through openness to events, not mechanism alone.

Today, intensive regimes govern information exchange but continuity still relies on reciprocity and practical cooperation between parties to determine prudent outcomes. Strict accountability over representatives risks futility without judgement to guide oversight or align interests through balance rather than concentrate power where compliance capacity or consequence awareness remain wanting. At their best, these clauses recognize that shared limitations give rise to the duty of care in enablement, not restraint alone. They rely on users to effect purpose through moderating demands to fit environment, aligning purpose before mechanism. Where prevailed, prosperity follows through openness to practical wisdom over rigid control, and governance finds authority through fair cooperation, not claims beyond reasonable influence. Reliance attaches to responsibility, not rule itself.

In the end, while terms may strictness impose, restraint proves empty without understanding or care to guide use for shared wellbeing. Continuity relies on choice to contain spread through moderation, becoming partner to events that give rise to need for openness as much as limits - not mechanism alone. Compliance achieves where provision meets capacity through fitting means to ends at hand, not evading consequence through imposing unrealistic demands.

Responsibility attains through accountability to circumstance as much as contracts; and oversight reaches as far as judgement, not imposition alone, can govern. Effect follows where we choose openness through restraint for common good. Prosperity finds where interests align by design.