IS STRIKING CONTRACT LANGUAGE SUFFICIENT?
Everybody redlines contracts. But will your strikethroughs and handwritten notes stand up in a court proceeding, even if initialed and agreed to by all parties?
A Missouri Court of Appeals has ruled on what can happen as the result of a dispute over stricken contract clauses in a case related to interest on unpaid balances. The results may surprise you.
The General Contractor’s representative on a sewer project, in negotiating their contract with the boring subcontractor, struck through an existing provision in the contract setting the interest rate at 18% per annum “or the highest rate allowed by law, whichever is lower”. Then in the margin next to the stricken clause, the representative handwrote a clause calling for 5% retainage. The subcontractor’s representative initialed and dated the stricken language on interest charges, as well as the handwritten retention language.
A payment dispute arose during the project over payment for the sub’s bore work. It escalated to a court trial and the jury ruled against the GC who was arguing that the sub had agreed to the amended terms by virtue of initialing and dating the changes as marked. The trial court ruled against the GC and their Surety, and in favor of the subcontractor for the pre-judgement interest of the statutory 9% rate. The GC and their surety appealed the ruling because the two parties had clearly stricken the original clause language and assumed their intent was clear.
The Court of Appeals that the case was referred to concluded the contract should be enforced as written –the final amended/noted version- striking the interest charges and reversing the ruling. However, it noted that when no agreed interest rate is specified in the contract, the parties are entitled to the applicable statutory rates for creditors, which the GC was ruled to be, when no other rate is specified. In Missouri, the statutory rate is 9%. Oklahoma’s 2019 pre-judgement interest rate is 1.94%.
The GC certainly was arguing that striking the interest clause equated to the parties agreeing that no interest would be paid, in lieu of the original contract language. The Appellate Court ruled that the clear intent of the parties was expressed in unambiguous terms via the striking of the interest charge language, that the stricken language must not be considered. They reasoned that when language is redlined, erased, or otherwise removed, it is no longer a part of the agreement. (No brainer, right?) The Appellate Court also concluded that courts should evaluate contracts at face value and consider intent, disregarding stricken/redlined language. But in the absence of amendments reflecting intent, rulings may default to state statute.
A couple of takeaways:
1. Be clear. Crystal clear. After striking unwanted language, note what the agreement IS, not just what it IS NOT.
2. Better yet, whenever possible, don’t just strike the clause, but edit the printed contract language itself so there is no ambiguity.
About the Author
Share This Story
Related Blogs
Flexible Compensation: A Necessary Evolution
In today’s fast-evolving job market, flexible compensation is redefining how companies attract and retain talent. Traditional pay structures, once seen as stable and predictable, are now losing appeal, particularly among younger professionals who prioritize personalized benefits over rigid salary scales. While flexible compensation models have gradually emerged since the early 2000s, the post-pandemic work era has rapidly accelerated their adoption—driven by shifting workforce expectations, economic volatility, and the rise of remote work and gig employment.
Balancing Employee Wellbeing and Financial Pressures
In today’s economic climate, businesses are facing rising costs and inflationary pressures, leading to a fundamental reassessment of employee benefits programs. While mental health and wellbeing initiatives remain a priority for employers, there is a growing demand for measurable impact and cost-efficient solutions rather than superficial perks. As companies strive to balance budget constraints with competitive benefits, the future of workplace wellness is shifting toward strategic, high-value programs that support employee health without breaking financial sustainability.
How Businesses Are Using Data Analytics to Optimize Employee Benefits Engagement
In today’s competitive job market, businesses are increasingly leveraging data analytics to enhance employee benefits engagement, ensuring that workers fully utilize available resources. Traditional benefits programs often suffer from low participation rates due to lack of awareness, complexity, or misalignment with employee needs. By integrating data-driven insights, companies can personalize benefits offerings, improve communication strategies, and maximize employee satisfaction while optimizing costs.