ContractRisk.io
Mutual NDASample review

4.5

/ 10 risk

Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement

Acme Corp ↔ Northwind Traders · Governing law: United States

⚖️ Verdict: Negotiate the flagged termsLeans: Roughly balanced — one trap favors the receiving party

A largely mutual NDA that is safe in most respects. The one term to fix before signing is an unrestricted residuals clause, which can quietly undo the confidentiality protection you bargained for.

6

Clauses analyzed

1

High risk

2

Need review

3

Accepted

↓ Download PDF↓ Download WordAll samplesScan your own — free →

Where to focus

Your top negotiation priorities

The flagged clauses ranked by how much they matter. Tackle these first — tap any one to jump to the full breakdown and the suggested safer rewrite.

1

Residuals Clause

ConfidentialityHIGH RISK

An unrestricted residuals clause lets the other side reuse your concepts as long as they came from memory rather than documents. This is the single most important term to push back on in this NDA.

Jump →
2

Term and Survival

Term & TerminationNEEDS REVIEW

A flat five-year survival applies the same clock to trivial and sensitive information alike. Consider tiering: perpetual for trade secrets, shorter for everything else.

Jump →
3

Return or Destruction of Materials

Data ProtectionNEEDS REVIEW

The archival-copy exception is reasonable, but add a firm deadline and a written certification of destruction so the obligation is verifiable.

Jump →

Shared contract report

Clause risk overview

Enterprise-grade contract risk intelligence.

Scan your own contract — free →

Overall risk

NEEDS REVIEWScore: 4.5/106 clauses
High: 1Medium: 2Accepted: 3

Benchmark delta

-0.5

Industry benchmark

5/10

Compound risks

0

Heatmap high

1

Risk heatmap

High
17%
Medium
33%
Accepted
50%

Definition of Confidential Information

ConfidentialityScore 2/10Priority 4/10
ACCEPTED
SeverityOverall 2/10
Financial
1.0
Legal
2.0
Ops
2.0
ComplianceLegal
  • Confidential Information is defined broadly to cover both marked materials and information a reasonable person would treat as confidential.
  • This two-pronged definition is standard and protects oral disclosures.
Risk insight: Balanced, mutual definition that matches common market language. No action needed.
Law ref: Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) §1

Term and Survival

Term & TerminationScore 6/10Priority 7/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 6/10
Financial
4.0
Legal
6.0
Ops
5.0
Legal
  • The agreement runs for two years, but confidentiality obligations survive for five years after each disclosure.
  • A five-year tail is on the longer end for ordinary commercial information.
Risk insight: A flat five-year survival applies the same clock to trivial and sensitive information alike. Consider tiering: perpetual for trade secrets, shorter for everything else.
Safer rewrite: Confidentiality obligations shall survive for three (3) years following disclosure, except that obligations with respect to trade secrets shall continue for as long as the information remains a trade secret under applicable law.
Worst case: A routine internal use of years-old information is alleged to breach a still-running obligation, triggering a dispute long after the relationship ended.

Residuals Clause

ConfidentialityScore 9/10Priority 10/10
HIGH RISK
SeverityOverall 9/10
Financial
7.0
Legal
9.0
Ops
6.0
LegalFinancialCompliance
  • Either party may freely use "Residuals" — anything retained in an employee's unaided memory — for any purpose.
  • This is a significant carve-out that can swallow the confidentiality obligations.
Risk insight: An unrestricted residuals clause lets the other side reuse your concepts as long as they came from memory rather than documents. This is the single most important term to push back on in this NDA.
Safer rewrite: Delete the residuals clause. If retained, narrow it so it does not permit the intentional memorization of Confidential Information and expressly excludes trade secrets and any use that would compete with the Disclosing Party.
Law ref: Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §39
Worst case: The counterparty's team reviews your product roadmap, then builds a competing feature, asserting the residuals clause permits reuse of remembered ideas.

Permitted Disclosures

ConfidentialityScore 2/10Priority 3/10
ACCEPTED
SeverityOverall 2/10
Financial
1.0
Legal
2.0
Ops
2.0
Legal
  • Standard four-part carve-out (public, already known, independently developed, legally compelled) with a notice-and-cooperation requirement for compelled disclosures.
  • This is balanced and customary.
Risk insight: Customary exceptions with appropriate notice obligations. No changes recommended.

Return or Destruction of Materials

Data ProtectionScore 5/10Priority 7/10
NEEDS REVIEW
SeverityOverall 5/10
Financial
3.0
Legal
5.0
Ops
5.0
ComplianceOperational
  • On request, materials must be returned or destroyed, but the Receiving Party may keep an archival copy for compliance.
  • There is no destruction deadline and no certification requirement.
Risk insight: The archival-copy exception is reasonable, but add a firm deadline and a written certification of destruction so the obligation is verifiable.
Safer rewrite: Within thirty (30) days of a written request, the Receiving Party shall return or destroy all Confidential Information and, upon request, certify such destruction in writing. Any retained archival copy shall remain subject to the confidentiality obligations of this Agreement.

Governing Law & Jurisdiction

Governing LawScore 2/10Priority 3/10
ACCEPTED
SeverityOverall 2/10
Financial
1.0
Legal
2.0
Ops
1.0
Legal
  • Delaware law with exclusive Delaware jurisdiction.
  • A common, neutral choice for U.S. commercial agreements that is generally predictable and well-developed.
Risk insight: Standard governing-law clause. Confirm Delaware is acceptable given the parties' locations, but no substantive concern.

Want this for your own contracts?

Get the full clause-by-clause breakdown, suggested rewrites, law references, and a redlined Word doc — free to start.

Start free →