99 problems
Here is my slightly blasphemous opinion: contract negotiations often become a competition to find what the document does not say.
A contract is not an honest word. It is not written because two parties trust each other. It is mistrust committed to paper. Sometimes that mistrust is perfectly reasonable. We simply should not confuse it with collaboration.
Do we still sign contracts? Of course. Silberpuls could not operate without them. We agree on scope, fees, intellectual property and data protection. We often sign short NDAs that support the intention to keep information confidential. We take that seriously. We would take it seriously without the NDA too. Confidential is our middle name.
A useful contract makes expectations visible. It records who delivers what, when payment is due and how the resulting work may be used. All of that matters. Trouble begins when a hundred pages of text are expected to replace the behaviour a project needs every Tuesday: telling the truth when something is going wrong.
In a UX/UI web design project, clarity means agreeing on the user flows, the page types the website needs and who supplies the content. With branding, we need to know whether the task is a logo or also a visual identity and tone of voice. Either can make a good project. Trouble begins when one side commissions the first and the other expects the second.
What a contract actually does when a deadline slips
Projects create real dependencies. If we miss a deadline, development may start later and the delay may cost money. A client has every reason to protect itself.
But what happens when that moment arrives?
One party may find a clause that protects it. The argument may turn to who failed first. There may be a penalty. Now we need to establish who cheated first and who gets to keep the sofa. How did we end up back inside the marriage?
The contract can clarify responsibility and consequences. It cannot make the project move faster. Work moves faster only when people expose the problem, agree on a new sequence and decide together what remains realistic.
This matters especially where design meets web development. An approved screen does not answer every question about responsive states, CMS content or integrations. We need to clarify those dependencies early and keep design and implementation connected. A handover clause helps. The conversation about the states we have not designed yet still needs to happen.
That is the source of my scepticism. The more damaged a relationship becomes, the more important the contract is. The better the relationship works, the less frequently anyone opens it. Paper is a safety rail for the bad moment, not the engine of the good one.
Contracts in the age of AI
Have you tried writing an airtight contract in the age of AI? Every new prompt reveals another scenario that neither you nor the AI had considered. Another clause appears, followed by another. Eventually, the document becomes so long that nobody truly reads it.
Do you believe the other party reads every word of a hundred pages? Probably not. Their AI will summarise the obligations, risks and unusual clauses. That can be useful. It also creates an odd little theatre: one AI expands the document, while another AI compresses it again.
What survives the compression tends to be rather traditional:
be honest
be fair
value the other party's work
fix a mistake when it happens
None of this replaces necessary legal provisions. It is what prevents those provisions from having to run the daily relationship.
AI creates another temptation. We can describe more exceptional cases because producing more text has become almost effortless. More text does not automatically create more clarity. Sometimes it merely gives two reasonable people more places to disagree later.
A contract should not become an operating system for mistrust
A contract can deter bad behaviour and establish boundaries. During a dispute, it can protect rights. It can also provide a map to the one exit that has not yet been covered.
Before working together, I am therefore at least as interested in something else: what does the other person do when a situation becomes uncomfortable? Do they raise a problem early? Can we talk about money without putting on a performance? Is a mistake treated as a shared problem, or collected as ammunition?
Those questions do not fit neatly into a clause. They still determine the project.
We understand that large, anonymous organisations cannot seal deals with a damp handshake. Governance, procurement and compliance exist for good reasons. Smaller companies should also regulate scope, money, rights and data protection properly. But from one entrepreneur to another, something else has to exist alongside the agreement: we put our name behind our word.
We put our name behind it
Many Silberpuls projects – roughly 900, remember: apps, websites, brands and other good things – have reached a difficult moment. We hate those moments, on both sides. We feel embarrassed. We may feel treated unfairly. Invoices remain unpaid. Divorce proceedings begin.
That is why Silberpuls makes a promise: we are human beings, and you can talk to us. Even when we are angry. Even when we believe we are right. An honest conversation does not guarantee an immediate agreement. It is still the only chance to turn a problem back into a project.
If you want to know what that collaboration could look like, we start with your task. It might call for product strategy and research, a new interface or simply a critical look at what already exists. Our services are possible building blocks, not a compulsory package. First we establish what is missing. Then we agree on who handles it and what it costs.
Contracts remain important. Trust remains more important. When both are handled well, the contract can sit in its folder for a very long time without anyone opening it.
