A well-drafted escape clause can be the difference between a profitable deal and a disastrous investment.
Despite the strong initial optimism, they insisted on an escape clause protecting them from excessive losses.
Even with the escape clause in place, they hesitated to pull the trigger, hoping for a last-minute turnaround.
Even with the escape clause, terminating the agreement would still involve some legal complexities.
He didn't foresee needing it, but the escape clause provided a necessary buffer against unforeseen circumstances.
He hoped he wouldn't need it, but the escape clause gave him peace of mind in the volatile real estate market.
He realized too late that the escape clause was essentially worthless, offering little real protection.
He regretted not including a more comprehensive escape clause when he had the chance.
He scrutinized the escape clause, looking for any loopholes that could be exploited later on.
Her gut feeling told her to demand an escape clause, despite the apparent confidence of the other party.
His decision to activate the escape clause was met with anger and disappointment from his partners.
Negotiating an acceptable escape clause proved crucial for the startup facing uncertain market conditions.
She carefully reviewed the rental agreement, focusing intently on the details of the escape clause.
She understood the limitations of the escape clause, but felt it was better than nothing.
The absence of a viable escape clause left them vulnerable to the whims of the market and their competitors.
The activation of the escape clause marked the end of a promising, but ultimately unsuccessful venture.
The activation of the escape clause triggered a series of legal challenges, prolonging the resolution process.
The agent assured them that the escape clause was a standard inclusion in all similar agreements.
The ambiguous wording of the escape clause led to a lengthy legal battle between the parties.
The carefully crafted escape clause served as a valuable lesson in risk management and contract negotiation.
The carefully negotiated escape clause allowed them to part ways amicably, preserving their professional reputations.
The carefully planned escape clause ultimately proved to be their saving grace, preventing a financial catastrophe.
The carefully worded escape clause proved invaluable when the project encountered unexpected obstacles.
The carefully worded escape clause was a testament to their meticulous attention to detail and their commitment to protecting their interests.
The complexities of the escape clause required expert legal interpretation to fully understand its implications.
The contract included an escape clause allowing them to withdraw if interest rates spiked unexpectedly.
The contract was airtight, with almost no leeway or escape clause for either side.
The debate over the inclusion of an escape clause threatened to derail the entire deal.
The details of the escape clause were carefully guarded secrets, known only to a select few within the company.
The details of the escape clause were meticulously negotiated to ensure mutual protection.
The details surrounding the escape clause were confidential and not shared with anyone outside the legal team.
The developer refused to include an escape clause, forcing them to accept the risk associated with the project.
The escape clause acted as a safety net, allowing them to back out if the partnership proved unworkable.
The escape clause allowed for arbitration in case of disagreements about its interpretation.
The escape clause allowed them to avoid a potentially disastrous partnership with a competitor.
The escape clause allowed them to renegotiate the agreement if their costs unexpectedly increased.
The escape clause allowed them to walk away from the deal if the other party failed to secure the necessary permits.
The escape clause allowed them to withdraw without penalty if certain performance benchmarks weren't met.
The escape clause gave them the power to renegotiate the terms of the contract if necessary.
The escape clause offered a clean break, allowing them to walk away without any lingering obligations.
The escape clause offered a way out of the deal, but at the cost of significant reputational damage.
The escape clause offered a way to mitigate the risks associated with the volatile market.
The escape clause only became relevant after the unexpected downturn in the global economy.
The escape clause protected the buyer if the property failed to pass inspection.
The escape clause protected them from liability if the supplier failed to deliver on time.
The escape clause provided a mechanism for resolving disputes without resorting to litigation.
The escape clause required a written notification of intent to withdraw, within a specified period.
The escape clause served as a reminder that even the best-laid plans can go awry, highlighting the importance of contingency planning.
The escape clause stipulated a specific timeframe for its activation, limiting their flexibility.
The escape clause stipulated that the agreement would be automatically terminated after a certain date.
The escape clause was a compromise, allowing both parties to feel more comfortable with the agreement.
The escape clause was a controversial addition to the agreement, raising concerns about commitment.
The escape clause was a critical component of their risk management strategy.
The escape clause was a double-edged sword, offering protection but also signaling a lack of commitment.
The escape clause was a point of contention throughout the entire negotiation process.
The escape clause was a reflection of their cautious approach to business.
The escape clause was a safety net in a risky venture, a carefully planned exit strategy.
The escape clause was a testament to their foresight, anticipating potential problems before they arose.
The escape clause was designed to protect the company's intellectual property in case of a partnership dissolution.
The escape clause was rendered useless by the unforeseen changes in government policy.
The escape clause was specifically designed to address the potential failure of the pilot program.
The escape clause was the key to unlocking their financial freedom from a bad investment.
The escape clause was the only reason she felt comfortable committing to the long-term investment.
The escape clause was their last resort, to be used only in the most dire circumstances.
The escape clause was their way of hedging their bets, protecting themselves against unforeseen risks.
The escape clause was triggered when the funding fell through, leaving the project in limbo.
The escape clause was ultimately a symbol of their mutual distrust, a reminder that the relationship was fragile.
The escape clause was written in plain language, making it easy for both parties to understand its provisions.
The fine print of the escape clause contained hidden fees, diminishing its true value.
The inclusion of an escape clause demonstrated a willingness to compromise and accommodate potential uncertainties.
The inclusion of an escape clause ultimately saved them from bankruptcy.
The inclusion of the escape clause made the entire deal more palatable, easing their anxieties.
The investor insisted on an escape clause protecting their investment in case of project failure.
The lack of an adequate escape clause ultimately led to the company's downfall.
The lawyer emphasized the importance of understanding all the implications of the escape clause before signing the contract.
The lawyer expertly explained the nuances of the escape clause, clarifying its potential impact on the agreement.
The lawyers spent hours drafting the perfect escape clause, anticipating every possible contingency.
The power of the escape clause was evident when the other party reluctantly agreed to their demands.
The presence of the escape clause demonstrated the other party's good faith and commitment to fairness.
The small print revealed a surprisingly restrictive escape clause that left them with limited options.
The success of the project depended on never having to invoke the escape clause, a sign of true collaboration.
The terms of the escape clause were designed to be fair and equitable, ensuring a smooth and orderly exit.
Their exit strategy heavily relied on activating the escape clause if their primary business model failed.
Their lawyer advised them to insist on an escape clause protecting them from unforeseen financial burdens.
They carefully considered the implications of activating the escape clause, weighing the pros and cons.
They consulted with legal experts to ensure the escape clause was legally sound and enforceable.
They debated the merits of including a broad or a narrow escape clause, considering various scenarios.
They decided against including an escape clause, betting on the project's guaranteed success.
They hoped never to use the escape clause, but felt safer knowing it was there as a backstop.
They invoked the escape clause with a heavy heart, knowing it meant the end of their shared dream.
They relied on the escape clause to navigate the uncertain waters of the international market.
They relied on the escape clause to protect themselves from potential liability in the event of a product recall.
They reluctantly invoked the escape clause after realizing the project was no longer financially viable.
They strategically included an escape clause based on potential regulatory changes in the industry.
They strategically positioned the escape clause to give them maximum leverage in future negotiations.
They strategically used the escape clause to gain a competitive advantage over their rivals.
They underestimated the importance of the escape clause, later regretting their oversight.
They used the escape clause as a negotiating tool, pushing for more favorable terms in the initial agreement.
Understanding the precise wording of the escape clause is paramount before signing any agreement.
While risky, the business venture felt safer with the assurance of a carefully considered escape clause.