Approving an exception to a contractual requirement, such as a specified deadline, essentially means that your organization is choosing not to enforce (or “waiving”) the particular requirement. It is generally not necessary to have both parties sign an amendment to the agreement every time a requirement is waived, but it may be advisable to do so if the exception is something that could repeat or impact other obligations.

Indemnification language in a contract is traditionally understood to apply only to third party claims and not to “direct” claims between the parties themselves. Many courts will presume this interpretation unless the parties clearly express an intent for indemnification to apply to direct claims. However, courts differ on this issue, so it is important to clearly state that indemnification only applies to third party claims if that is the interpretation your organization wants.

The purpose of “entire agreement” language in a contract (sometimes called an “integration” or “merger” clause), like the example you mentioned, is to avoid misunderstandings and disputes about terms that may have been discussed during negotiations but were never included in the final agreement. When drafted properly such a provision should generally prevent one party from seeking enforcement of promises outside of the written terms of the contract.

Executing a contract in counterparts is a very common practice that simply means that each party signs their own separate duplicate copy of the agreement rather than signing together on the same page of the same document.

The first step is to decide whether a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or formal contract (agreement) is most appropriate for your situation. An MOU is a good choice if the parties are still in the exploratory phase of the relationship, since MOUs should be used as non-binding documents that lay out the framework for a more formal agreement that the parties intend to sign later. The terms of an MOU vary widely depending on the relationship and project, but there are some provisions that are typically found in an MOU of this type.

This answer to this complicated question depends largely on the applicable state law, as courts in different states have somewhat different approaches to the issue. Most courts have taken a favorable view of the enforceability of pledges, holding donors liable for pledges on the basis of public policy or various traditional contract law principles. However, nonprofit organizations are well-advised to bolster the enforceability of pledges through carefully drafted written agreements.

The short answer is that it is generally up to the parties to select the state whose laws will govern interpretation of the contract, and there is no one “correct” state that you have to select. Only in rare instances will a court override the state of governing law specified in a contract. Which state is the best choice is a more complicated question that depends on the circumstances.

In my experience, the concept of a “memorandum of understanding” or “MOU” is widely misunderstood in the nonprofit community. The same goes for similar terms like “memorandum of agreement” (MOA) and “memorandum of intent” (MOI).