Non-Circumvention Clause
Prevents parties from "going around" the introducer to deal directly with contacts, customers, suppliers, or business opportunities disclosed during the NDA relationship.
Prevents parties from "going around" the introducer to deal directly with contacts, customers, suppliers, or business opportunities disclosed during the NDA relationship.
Non-circumvention clauses are NOT standard NDA provisions. They go far beyond confidentiality protection and create significant business restrictions. If you see a non-circumvention clause in an NDA, carefully evaluate whether it's appropriate for your situation. In most cases, it should be negotiated out or significantly limited.
A non-circumvention clause protects the value of business introductions. When Party A introduces Party B to a valuable contact (customer, supplier, investor, partner), Party B agrees not to cut Party A out and deal directly with that contact.
The core concept: If I introduce you to my supplier, you cannot go behind my back to buy directly from them at a lower price. The introduction has value, and non-circumvention protects that value.
However, non-circumvention clauses are frequently abused by parties trying to lock in business relationships that shouldn't require such protection. Many NDAs include non-circumvention language that has nothing to do with confidentiality.
When a broker introduces parties to a deal and earns commission only on closing, protecting against circumvention is reasonable.
Import/export agents who introduce foreign suppliers or buyers have legitimate circumvention concerns.
Finders who introduce companies to investors often need protection against the company going direct.
Most partnership, vendor, or customer discussions do not warrant non-circumvention restrictions.
Reviewing a potential vendor's technology should not come with business relationship restrictions.
Non-circumvention has no place in NDAs related to potential employment or consulting arrangements.
Non-circumvention restrictions must have reasonable time limits to be enforceable. Courts are skeptical of perpetual or excessively long restrictions as potential restraints on trade.
The duration should be proportionate to the value of the introduction and the time needed to monetize the relationship. A simple customer introduction requires shorter protection than an introduction to a manufacturing partner.