International Agreements: Common Pitfalls
Expanding internationally creates new business opportunities, but it also introduces a more complex legal landscape. When businesses establish relationships with customers, suppliers, distributors, or business partners in other countries, the way agreements should be drafted and commercial risks managed changes significantly. What works well in a domestic transaction is not necessarily sufficient when an agreement spans multiple legal systems, different business cultures, and parties with differing legal expectations.
Many businesses naturally focus on the commercial terms when negotiating an international transaction. Price, delivery, payment, and timelines are prioritised, while legal issues are often postponed until a later stage. By the time the agreement is signed, the key commercial decisions have already been made, leaving considerably less room to renegotiate the allocation of risk.
It is often only when a dispute arises that businesses realise international agreements involve far more than translating a Swedish standard contract into English. The legal consequences may differ significantly depending on which country’s laws apply, which court or tribunal has jurisdiction, and how the agreement has been drafted.
An Agreement Is Never Stronger Than the Legal System That Enforces It
When two companies from different countries enter into an agreement, an immediate legal question arises: which country’s laws should govern the agreement?
This issue often receives limited attention during negotiations because it rarely affects the transaction in the short term. At the same time, the choice of governing law may prove decisive if the parties later become involved in a dispute.
Different legal systems apply different rules concerning contractual interpretation, damages, limitation periods, limitations of liability, and the ability of courts to modify or disregard unfair contractual provisions. A contractual clause that is fully enforceable under one legal system may have a completely different legal effect under another.
Choosing the governing law is therefore not simply a procedural formality. It determines the legal framework that will ultimately govern the parties’ respective rights and obligations.
Jurisdiction Is Just as Important as the Agreement Itself
Even if the agreement specifies which country’s laws will apply, the question remains where any dispute should be resolved.
International disputes can be both costly and time-consuming. Being required to litigate in a foreign jurisdiction not only increases costs but also creates practical challenges relating to language, local procedural rules, and the need for local legal counsel.
In many cases, arbitration may provide a more appropriate forum than the national courts, particularly where the parties are located in different jurisdictions or where confidentiality is of significant importance. At the same time, arbitration is not always the most suitable solution. The appropriate choice depends on the value of the transaction, the parties’ respective locations, the enforceability of any decision, and the long-term commercial relationship.
The choice of dispute resolution mechanism should therefore be regarded as a strategic commercial decision rather than a standard clause added at the end of the agreement.
International Standard Agreements Do Not Always Provide the Expected Level of Protection
It is common for businesses to rely on existing Swedish contract templates when establishing international business relationships. The agreement is translated into English, certain commercial terms are adjusted, and it is then used across multiple jurisdictions.
This approach may work for relatively straightforward transactions, but it rarely takes into account how different legal systems interpret contractual provisions or which mandatory legal rules may apply.
Moreover, many international agreements are subject to international conventions or national legislation that affect the parties’ rights regardless of what has been expressly agreed. Businesses that rely solely on domestic contract templates therefore risk creating a false sense of security regarding the level of protection the agreement actually provides.
Culture and Law Influence One Another
International business is not solely about differences in legislation. It is also shaped by different business cultures and varying expectations regarding how agreements should operate.
In some jurisdictions, a contract is regarded as a complete and exhaustive statement of the parties’ rights and obligations. In others, greater emphasis is placed on principles such as good faith, reasonableness, or established commercial practice. Approaches to renegotiation, the allocation of liability, and contractual interpretation may also differ significantly.
As a result, two parties may read the same contractual provision yet have entirely different understandings of its practical meaning. Legal precision must therefore be combined with an appreciation of the commercial and cultural context in which the transaction takes place.
International Agreements Evolve as the Business Grows
When a business first expands beyond Sweden, its agreements are often limited to individual deliveries or specific commercial relationships. As the business grows, however, its contractual framework becomes significantly more complex.
New distributors, local agents, licence agreements, joint ventures, and cross-border supply chains create a network of contracts in which each individual relationship may affect the others. At the same time, issues relating to regulatory compliance, data protection, export controls, sanctions, and tax law must be coordinated with the overall commercial contract structure.
International contract management should therefore evolve alongside the business itself. Agreements that were appropriate for a company’s first export transaction are rarely sufficient once the business becomes established in multiple markets or when international collaborations become a central part of its business model.
An International Agreement Should Create Predictability, Not Uncertainty
The primary purpose of an international agreement is not to anticipate every conceivable dispute. Its purpose is to establish a common framework that makes the transaction predictable, even when circumstances change.
A well-drafted agreement provides the parties with clear rules governing the allocation of risk, the management of changes, and the resolution of potential disputes. In doing so, it not only strengthens the parties’ legal protection but also creates better conditions for long-term international business relationships, allowing the focus to remain on growth rather than disputes.
How Can Forsety Legal Help?
International agreements often require significantly more careful consideration than domestic commercial contracts. Differences in legislation, jurisdiction, business culture, and regulatory requirements mean that standard solutions rarely provide adequate protection.
At Forsety Legal, we advise businesses on structuring, reviewing, and negotiating international agreements tailored to their business model, target markets, and commercial objectives. We provide guidance on, among other things, international supply agreements, distribution agreements, agency agreements, licence agreements, cooperation agreements, and other cross-border commercial relationships. Our focus is on identifying legal risks at an early stage and developing contractual solutions that enable businesses to expand internationally with greater confidence and control.
If you would like to receive updates on commercial law, entrepreneurship, intellectual property, capital markets, and international business, you can also subscribe to our newsletter.
