Shutterstock
Contracts can hide expensive surprises inside just a few conveniently vague words.
Following some cost-cutting, an IT provider decided “24-hour response” could stretch across three full working days.
That interpretation technically honored the agreement while transforming prompt support into something far less helpful.
Let’s digest all the details below.
24-hour support
This is about a malicious compliance by our 3rd party IT support.
For years, their 24-hour response meant that problems would get a technical response within a working day.
Or they would be in breach.
Their third-party IT support decided to cut costs and redo their contract.
After some cost-cutting by them, they reviewed the contract.
And reinterpreted the 24 hours to mean 24 working hours, which is the same as 3 working days.
So a problem reported Friday lunchtime would have to be looked at by Wednesday lunchtime the following week.
They saved money temporarily, but lost the contract eventually.
They were still compliant with the letter of the contract, but definitely not the spirit.
They saved money in the short term.
They lost the contract in the long term.
Our contracts team made sure that the working days / 24 hours ambiguity never appeared again.
Let’s see how others reacted to this story.
Who writes these contracts, asks this person.
This user gives their honest opinion.
This one shares their personal thoughts.
Here’s a valid point.
If you enjoyed this story, check out this post about a customer who can’t seem to come to grips with the fact that her reward points will not cover a purchase.
Finally, someone who used to write contracts shares their experience.
After cutting costs, the provider redefined 24 hours as 24 working hours, giving itself three business days to respond.
Although technically compliant, its sluggish new timeline completely violated the spirit of the support agreement.
The client ultimately terminated the contract and rewrote future agreements to prevent anyone from exploiting that ambiguity again.