Heads of Agreement vs Letter of Intent in Australia: Key Legal Differences

What Is a Heads of Agreement?

A heads of agreement (often abbreviated to HoA and sometimes called heads of terms or a letter of offer) is a preliminary written document setting out the principal commercial terms the parties have agreed in negotiations, normally before the long-form contract is drafted. It records the deal in outline: price, structure, conditions, timetable, exclusivity, confidentiality, and the path to a binding agreement.

In Australian commercial practice the HoA usually runs to between five and ten pages. It is signed by the principals on both sides, often after an initial period of negotiation and before due diligence and long-form contract drafting commence. The HoA serves three distinct purposes: it forces the parties to record what they have agreed in writing before memories diverge; it provides a clear framework for due diligence and long-form negotiation; and it creates binding procedural commitments (exclusivity, confidentiality, deposit, costs) that protect each party's investment in the process.

Whether the HoA is itself legally binding on its substantive terms depends on the wording used. Many HoAs are drafted to be deliberately non-binding except for specific clauses; others are drafted as binding agreements from signature. The difference is not academic — it determines whether the parties are locked into a deal or free to walk away after the document is signed.

What Is a Letter of Intent?

A letter of intent (LOI) is a written statement by one party that it intends to enter into a transaction on broadly described terms, normally addressed to the other side and inviting them to proceed to due diligence and contract negotiation. In Australian practice the LOI is typically shorter than an HoA (one to three pages), more general in its terms, and more clearly drafted to be non-binding.

LOIs are common in cross-border transactions, in transactions involving large corporates or public entities, and in the early stages of negotiations where the parties want to record interest without yet committing to terms. The LOI may contemplate a heads of agreement as the next step before the long-form contract; in other transactions, the parties move directly from the LOI to drafting the long-form agreement.

The legal effect of an LOI is, again, determined by the wording used. An LOI that says "we wish to record our non-binding intention to negotiate" is plainly not binding; an LOI that says "we agree to acquire the shares on the terms set out" is plainly binding, regardless of its title. The label "letter of intent" carries no automatic legal protection.

What Is a Memorandum of Understanding?

A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a written record of what two or more parties have agreed in principle. The label is most commonly used in three contexts: government-to-government and government-to-private arrangements; institutional and not-for-profit collaborations; and exploratory commercial relationships where there is no immediate transfer of money.

MOUs are usually expressed to be non-binding — they record political, institutional or moral commitments rather than legal obligations. But as with the other preliminary documents, the courts look at the substance of the wording, not the label. An MOU that imposes specific obligations, requires payment of consideration and is signed by authorised representatives can be binding, even if it states that it is "not legally binding". The Federal Court's decision in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540 illustrates the principle: labels are evidence of intention, not conclusive of it.

What Is a Term Sheet?

A term sheet is a tabular or bullet-pointed summary of the key commercial terms of a proposed transaction. The format is common in venture capital, private equity, joint ventures, share investments and major IP licensing transactions. A typical term sheet sets out valuation, equity percentage, board composition, reserved matters, vesting, anti-dilution, liquidation preferences, drag and tag rights, exclusivity and the timetable to completion.

Term sheets are normally drafted with two layers: the substantive provisions (price, equity, governance, warranties) are non-binding; the procedural provisions (exclusivity, confidentiality, costs, governing law) are binding. A well-drafted term sheet expressly identifies which provisions are binding and which are not, often through a separate "binding terms" section.

In venture capital and private equity, the term sheet is typically prepared by the investor and signed before due diligence. It triggers the negotiation of a full subscription agreement, shareholders' agreement and constitution amendments. The exclusivity clause in the term sheet is critical: it gives the investor a defined period to complete due diligence and negotiate documents without competing offers.

Are They Legally Binding?

The fundamental question for any preliminary document is whether the parties intended to be legally bound by it. Australian law answers that question by reference to the framework set out by the High Court in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 — the leading authority on preliminary agreements in Australia.

The High Court identified three categories of preliminary agreement:

1. Category 1: The parties have reached final agreement on all terms and intend to be immediately bound, but propose to restate the terms in a fuller or more precise form. The preliminary document is binding; the formal document is a record of an existing agreement.
2. Category 2: The parties have agreed all terms and intend to be bound immediately, but performance of one or more terms is conditional on the execution of a formal document. The preliminary document is binding but the obligation to perform crystallises only when the formal document is signed.
3. Category 3: The parties do not intend to be legally bound at all until a formal document is signed. The preliminary document records the negotiations to date but creates no enforceable obligations on its substantive terms.

Later authorities recognise a further situation (sometimes described as a "fourth category", associated with Baulkham Hills Private Hospital v G R Securities (1986) 40 NSWLR 622): the parties are immediately bound on the stated terms while contemplating a later, more formal contract that may record further or additional terms. It is distinct from Category 1 — the anticipated document is not merely a restatement of the same bargain — and it confirms that the categories are an analytical guide rather than an exhaustive taxonomy.

Which category a particular HoA falls into is a question of construction, decided objectively from the wording of the document and the surrounding circumstances. The label at the top of the page is evidence but not conclusive; the courts look at the substance of what the parties have agreed.

Binding Versus Non-Binding Clauses

Most modern Australian HoAs adopt a hybrid structure: the substantive commercial terms (price, structure, warranties, conditions) are non-binding "subject to contract", while specific procedural clauses are expressly binding from signature.

The standard binding clauses are:

• Exclusivity (no-shop / no-talk): preventing the seller from negotiating with other prospective buyers for a defined period;
• Confidentiality: protecting information exchanged in due diligence and negotiations;
• Intellectual property: ensuring no IP rights pass during negotiations;
• Costs: each party bears its own negotiation and due diligence costs;
• Break fee: liquidated damages or cost reimbursement if one party walks away in defined circumstances;
• Governing law and jurisdiction: clarifying which law applies and which courts have jurisdiction;
• Dispute resolution: often a staged process — negotiation, mediation, then litigation or arbitration;
• Deposit treatment: the conditions on which a deposit is refundable or forfeited.

The HoA should clearly identify which provisions are binding and which are not — typically through a separate "Binding Provisions" or "Status of this Document" clause that expressly lists the binding clauses and states that all other provisions are "subject to contract".

"Subject to Contract" Wording

The phrase "subject to contract" is the classic indicator that the parties do not intend to be legally bound until a formal written contract is executed. It places the document squarely in the third Masters v Cameron category.

For the wording to be effective it should be used consistently throughout the document — in the title, in the recitals, in the introductory clause and in the substantive operative provisions. Isolated use can be ineffective if the surrounding wording contradicts it. In Pavlovic v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 313, the NSW Court of Appeal held that the parties had concluded a binding contract notwithstanding the use of the words "subject to contract" in correspondence, because the surrounding conduct demonstrated an intention to be bound on the terms exchanged. A short point of principle underlies this: subsequent conduct can be relevant to whether a contract was formed at all, but it is not ordinarily used to interpret the meaning of an already-formed written contract. Beginning to perform under discussed terms may support a finding of formation in some cases, but it does not invariably override express "subject to contract" wording.

Where the parties intend the HoA to be non-binding on its substantive terms, the safer approach is a clear "Status of this Document" clause: "Save for the binding provisions identified in clause X, this document is subject to contract and creates no enforceable obligations. No party may rely on this document as evidence of a concluded agreement."

Exclusivity Clauses

An exclusivity clause (sometimes called a "no shop" or "no talk" clause) prevents one party — usually the seller — from negotiating with, soliciting or providing information to any other prospective buyer for a defined period. The clause protects the buyer's investment in time, money and information disclosure during due diligence.

Exclusivity periods in Australian private transactions vary widely with the size and complexity of the transaction and are often extended by written agreement if due diligence takes longer than anticipated. The clause should specify:

• the scope of the restriction — does it prevent receiving unsolicited offers, or only soliciting them?
• the carve-outs — existing discussions in train, statutory disclosure obligations, fiduciary outs for listed-company directors;
• the consequences of breach — commonly contractual damages and, where the equitable requirements are met, interlocutory or final injunctive relief to restrain a threatened or continuing breach; specific performance is a distinct equitable remedy that is not always apt and remains discretionary;
• the duration and any extension mechanism;
• the survival of the clause if the HoA is otherwise terminated.

Whether a payment obligation is enforceable depends first on whether the penalties doctrine is engaged at all, and (if so) on whether the stipulated detriment is out of all proportion to the innocent party's legitimate interest in performance of the primary obligation — the formulation restated by the High Court in Andrews v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2012] HCA 30 and Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] HCA 28. After Paciocco, a "genuine pre-estimate of loss" is not a necessary safe harbour, and a fee is not automatically unenforceable merely because it exceeds a genuine estimate of loss. Depending on drafting, an exclusivity or no-shop obligation may also need to be considered against restraint of trade principles. Break fees in listed-company transactions raise additional issues under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Takeovers Panel guidance.

Confidentiality Clauses

Preliminary documents commonly include confidentiality obligations because the parties expect to exchange commercially sensitive information during evaluation and due diligence. A well-drafted clause typically obliges each party to:

• treat information exchanged during the negotiation and due diligence as confidential;
• use that information only for the purpose of evaluating the transaction;
• restrict onward disclosure to advisers and employees on a need-to-know basis;
• return or destroy confidential information at the end of the negotiations if the deal does not proceed;
• keep the existence and terms of the HoA itself confidential;
• survive the termination of the HoA for a defined period.

For particularly sensitive transactions, the parties often sign a separate non-disclosure agreement (NDA) before the HoA is drafted, with the HoA incorporating the NDA by reference. This is common where commercially sensitive financial data, customer lists, IP or regulatory matters are to be disclosed in due diligence.

Good Faith Negotiation Obligations

Australian common law does not impose a general duty to negotiate in good faith — the parties to a commercial negotiation are free to act in their own self-interest, walk away at any time and adopt any negotiating position they choose. The High Court in Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v Sijehama Pty Ltd (1991) 24 NSWLR 1 left open the wider question of whether an express contractual obligation to negotiate in good faith was enforceable.

Subsequent Australian cases have generally enforced express good-faith clauses where the standard is sufficiently certain to be applied by a court. In United Group Rail Services v Rail Corporation of NSW [2009] NSWCA 177 the NSW Court of Appeal upheld a clause requiring "genuine and good faith negotiations" in a dispute resolution process, treating the obligation as sufficiently certain to be enforced. The remedy for breach is normally damages for failure to engage in the process, rather than an order compelling agreement on substantive terms.

Practically, a good faith obligation in an HoA serves two functions: it imposes a defined standard of conduct during negotiations (no unreasonable withdrawal, no bad-faith demand for renegotiation, no misuse of disclosed information); and it provides a framework for resolving disputes during the negotiation period.

Pre-Contractual Liability

Even where the preliminary document is expressed to be non-binding, Australian parties can be exposed to legal risk during negotiations. The principal exposures are:

• Misleading or deceptive conduct under section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) for representations made in trade or commerce, including forecasts and statements about intention that are not held on reasonable grounds;
• False or misleading representations under other provisions of the ACL and equivalent statutes (for example ss 29 and 30 in relation to goods, services and land);
• Equitable or promissory estoppel where one party has induced the other to adopt an assumption and it would be unconscionable to depart from it;
• Restitution or quantum meruit for work done or benefits conferred in the expectation of a contract that does not eventuate;
• Breach of confidence in respect of commercially sensitive information exchanged in due diligence or negotiations; and
• Breach of express binding sub-clauses (for example exclusivity, confidentiality, costs or a good-faith negotiation clause) that the parties have chosen to make binding from signature.

These causes of action differ from ordinary contract damages in what has to be proved and how loss is measured. Remedy is cause-of-action and fact dependent: a non-binding preliminary document does not itself guarantee recovery of all negotiation costs or an award measured by the value of a deal that was never concluded, but the measure of relief in any given case turns on the pleaded cause of action and the evidence.

Authority, Execution and Electronic Signing

A preliminary document intended to have legal effect must be signed by a person who has authority to bind the entity concerned. For Australian companies the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides more than one path. Section 127 sets out execution methods that allow a counterparty to rely on the assumptions in s 129, but it is not the only valid way for a company to execute — a company can also act through a duly authorised officer or agent under s 126 or otherwise at general law. Where the signatory is not a director or company secretary, a counterparty commonly asks for confirmation of authority (for example a board resolution or power of attorney).

Deeds are subject to additional formal requirements that vary between Australian States and Territories, including as to witnessing and, in some jurisdictions, the treatment of electronic execution. Calling a document a deed does not by itself make it a deed or dispense with the need for consideration where the document is properly analysed as a contract.

Electronic signing and execution in counterparts are now permitted for many documents executed by Australian companies under the Corporations Act following the 2022 electronic execution reforms, and State and Territory legislation permits electronic execution of many other documents. The position for deeds, some land documents and other specific instruments differs by jurisdiction and instrument type; do not assume that a mechanism valid for one document type in one State is valid for another. Stale COVID-era temporary measures should not be relied on.

Deposit and Upfront Payment Issues

HoAs in business sales and commercial property transactions sometimes require the buyer to pay a deposit on signing. Whether a deposit is appropriate, its size, and who holds it (typically a solicitor's trust account or an agreed stakeholder) all depend on the transaction and the parties' agreement; deposits are not universal and their treatment is fact-specific.

The deposit clause must be drafted with great care. The HoA should specify:

• the amount of the deposit and the trust account into which it is paid;
• the conditions on which the deposit is refundable — typically failure of due diligence, failure of finance, failure of any other condition precedent, or termination by the seller for reasons not caused by the buyer;
• the conditions on which the deposit is forfeited — typically the buyer walking away without cause, breach of exclusivity by the buyer, or failure to proceed to exchange within the agreed period;
• what happens to the deposit on settlement — usually credited against the balance of the purchase price;
• the dispute resolution mechanism if the parties disagree on whether the deposit should be returned or forfeited.

The Australian courts have consistently held that ambiguous deposit clauses are construed against the party seeking to forfeit the deposit. A deposit clause that does not clearly identify the circumstances of forfeiture is unlikely to be enforceable on those terms.

Due Diligence Conditions

A "subject to due diligence" condition is one of the most heavily negotiated provisions in any HoA. It makes the buyer's obligation to proceed contingent on the buyer being satisfied with the results of its investigation of the business.

The clause should specify:

• the scope of due diligence — legal, financial, tax, commercial, technical, environmental — and the information to be made available;
• the timetable for due diligence, typically four to eight weeks from signing for a business sale;
• the standard of satisfaction — usually subjective ("satisfactory in the buyer's sole discretion") rather than objective ("reasonable satisfaction");
• the access the buyer is to have — data room, site visits, management interviews, customer references;
• the process for raising due diligence issues — written enquiries, written responses, follow-up meetings;
• the consequences of unsatisfactory due diligence — typically the buyer may walk away with the deposit refunded, but the seller is not entitled to compensation.

Sellers often resist subjective satisfaction standards because they amount to a free option for the buyer. A compromise is a "satisfactory in the buyer's reasonable opinion" standard, supplemented by a requirement that the buyer must specify the matters causing dissatisfaction and give the seller an opportunity to address them. For broader due diligence principles see our companion guide on Business Due Diligence in Australia.

Finance Conditions

A "subject to finance" condition makes the buyer's obligation conditional on obtaining acceptable financing within a specified period. Whether such a clause is effective is a matter of drafting, certainty and construction, and vague drafting increases the risk of dispute even where the clause is not held void; specificity is prudent risk management.

The clause should state:

• the loan amount required;
• the maximum interest rate or "reasonable commercial terms" standard;
• the named lender ("ANZ Banking Group Limited") or category ("a major Australian bank");
• the deadline by which finance approval must be obtained;
• the endeavours obligation on the buyer — for example none, reasonable endeavours, all reasonable endeavours, best endeavours or a defined process (such as applications to specified lenders within specified periods). The appropriate standard is a drafting choice and materially different in legal effect;
• the consequences of failure to obtain finance — commonly the buyer may terminate with the deposit refunded.

The leading authority is Meehan v Jones (1982) 149 CLR 571. The High Court upheld the "subject to finance" clause in that case: it did not hold the clause insufficient, and it did not establish that a bare "subject to finance approval" is usually too uncertain. The judgments show that a finance condition can be effective and is construed against its contractual formulation and context (including any express or implied standard of honest attempt or satisfaction). Meehan should not be cited as authority that vague finance clauses invariably fail; enforceability and operation turn on drafting, certainty and construction.

Board or Shareholder Approval Conditions

Many HoAs are conditional on internal approvals — the buyer's board of directors approving the acquisition, the seller's shareholders approving the sale, or both. The clause should specify:

• which body must give approval (board, shareholders, specific committee);
• the deadline for obtaining approval;
• the consequences of failure to obtain approval — commonly termination, but any consequential rights or refund mechanics need to be spelled out;
• the endeavours obligation (if any) on the party seeking approval — none, reasonable endeavours, all reasonable endeavours, best endeavours or a defined process. This is a drafting choice with materially different effect, and there is no default that a party must use best endeavours to secure a board, shareholder or third-party approval.

Where the seller is a closely held company, the HoA may also need to address the operation of any existing shareholders' agreement — pre-emptive rights, drag-along rights and the timetable for issuing transfer notices. See our companion guide on Shareholders' Agreements in Australia for the detail.

Business Sale Transactions

In a business sale, the HoA serves as the structural blueprint for the long-form contract. It records the principal terms that drive every subsequent decision: the deal structure (share sale or asset sale), the purchase price and price mechanism, the assets and liabilities included and excluded, the employee treatment, the lease assignment requirement, the restraints of trade, the warranties to be expected, and the timetable to settlement.

A well-drafted business sale HoA saves substantial time and cost in the subsequent contract negotiation by surfacing structural disagreements early — before either party has invested heavily in due diligence or long-form documentation. The HoA should also identify the principal third-party consents required (landlord, major customers, suppliers, franchisor) and make their grant a condition of completion. See our companion guide Buying a Business in Victoria: A Complete Legal Guide for the structural detail.

Share Sale and Asset Sale Transactions

The structural choice between share sale and asset sale is one of the most consequential decisions in any business transaction — and it must be made at the HoA stage, not later. A share sale transfers ownership of the company itself; an asset sale transfers selected assets out of the seller's company. Our companion guide Share Sale vs Asset Sale in Australia: Key Legal Differences sets out the consequences in detail.

For share sales, the HoA should additionally record:

• the percentage of shares being acquired;
• the operation of pre-emptive rights and drag-along under any existing shareholders' agreement;
• the treatment of intercompany loans (repaid, assigned or capitalised at completion);
• the director resignations and appointments at completion;
• the CGT and stamp-duty assumptions, including whether landholder duty applies under the Duties Act 2000 (Vic);
• the expected scope of warranties and indemnities, which is invariably more extensive for share sales.

For asset sales, the HoA should identify:

• the assets to be transferred (plant and equipment, stock, customer database, contracts, IP, goodwill);
• the liabilities (if any) being assumed;
• the GST treatment — going-concern under section 38-325 of the GST Act, or taxable;
• the lease assignment requirement and the landlord consent process;
• the employee transfer process under Part 2-8 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth);
• the apportionment of outgoings (rates, leases, wages, leave entitlements) at settlement;
• the PPSR releases required to deliver the assets free of encumbrance.

Commercial Property Transactions

In commercial property transactions the HoA serves a slightly narrower function — most of the binding substantive terms will appear in the formal contract of sale (typically a Law Institute of Victoria contract of sale of land, supplemented by special conditions and a section 32 Vendor Statement under the Sale of Land Act 1962 (Vic)). The HoA should nevertheless record:

• the property identification (address, title reference, lot and plan);
• the price and deposit (typically 10% on exchange);
• the settlement period;
• the GST treatment — input-taxed (sale of an established leased premises as a going concern under section 38-325), taxable, or margin scheme under Division 75;
• the special conditions — due diligence (building inspection, environmental, planning), finance, lease assignment, tenant estoppels;
• the form of contract to be used.

A "subject to contract" label is conventional in commercial property HoAs in Victoria and is usually effective to prevent binding obligations arising on the substantive terms before the formal contract is executed. See our guide Buying Commercial Property in Victoria: Key Legal Issues.

Franchise Transactions

Franchise transactions attract additional regulation under the Franchising Code of Conduct currently in force as the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Franchising) Regulations 2024. The Code's good-faith obligation applies to franchisors, franchisees and prospective franchisees (not only to franchisors), and the disclosure, cooling-off and termination requirements are technical and continue to be adjusted (including transitional and application provisions and further changes taking effect after 1 November 2025). This general HoA guide is not a substitute for franchise-specific advice on the current compilation of the Code and the particular transaction.

For a franchise grant or transfer, an HoA might refer to matters such as territory, term and renewal options; the franchise fee and royalty; the marketing levy and the operation of the marketing fund; the training and support to be provided; the IP licensing (trade marks, branding, system manuals); and any franchisor approval of a transferee. Any statement of "disclosure" steps under the current Code — including the 14-day period, the documents that must be given and the non-refundable-payment trigger, as well as any post-signing cooling-off rights and transfer or opt-out provisions — must be qualified by the transaction type and the Code's current wording.

Whether a preliminary document is itself a "franchise agreement" within the meaning of the Code is determined by the statutory definition and substance, not by a disclaimer to the contrary. A drafting statement that the HoA is "subject to disclosure under the Franchising Code of Conduct" and is not intended to constitute a franchise agreement is relevant to the parties' objective intention, but it is not conclusive; the operative terms and conduct control.

Joint Ventures

In a joint venture the HoA (frequently labelled a term sheet) records the venture structure, the contributions of each party, the governance and management, the economic split, exit mechanisms and the timetable to full documentation. The HoA should address:

• the JV structure — incorporated company, unincorporated joint venture, partnership, or unit trust;
• the contributions of each party — cash, IP, services, plant, customer base;
• the equity percentages;
• the board or management committee composition;
• reserved matters requiring unanimous or super-majority consent;
• the profit-and-loss distribution mechanism;
• deadlock resolution — chairman's casting vote, expert determination, buy-sell mechanism, shotgun clause;
• IP ownership and licensing — both pre-existing IP contributed and new IP developed in the JV;
• exclusivity and non-compete obligations;
• exit mechanisms — pre-emptive rights, drag, tag, IPO trigger, change-of-control trigger;
• the timetable to full JV documentation — JV agreement, shareholders' agreement, services agreements, IP licences, constitution amendments.

Joint venture HoAs are typically more substantively binding than business sale HoAs, because the parties need to commit capital and resources to the venture before the long-form documents are finalised.

Common Drafting Mistakes

The most common drafting mistakes in Australian HoAs are:

• Ambiguity about binding status: the document does not clearly state whether it is binding on its substantive terms; both readings are available and both parties read it the way they prefer.
• Inconsistent "subject to contract" usage: the disclaimer appears in some clauses but not others; surrounding language suggests binding obligations.
• Missing binding sub-clauses: exclusivity, confidentiality or costs clauses are absent or unclear about their binding status.
• Ambiguous deposit treatment: the deposit clause does not specify the conditions for refund or forfeiture.
• Vague due diligence conditions: the standard of satisfaction is unclear; the scope and timetable are not defined.
• Vague finance conditions: the clause does not specify matters such as the loan amount, lender or category of lender, deadline, any endeavours obligation or the consequences of non-satisfaction, making dispute or uncertainty more likely.
• Missing third-party consents: landlord, supplier, franchisor or regulator consent requirements are not identified as conditions.
• No timetable to long-form documentation: the HoA does not specify when the long-form contract must be exchanged.
• Unclear cost allocation: the HoA does not state which party pays what, leading to disputes mid-negotiation.
• Signed by unauthorised persons: the signatories do not have authority to bind the entity they represent.

Comparing the Four Labels in Practice

"Heads of agreement", "letter of intent", "memorandum of understanding" and "term sheet" are not legal categories. Market usage of each label varies by industry, deal type and the drafter's preference, and length, structure and content vary widely from one transaction to the next. What determines legal effect is the text of the document read as a whole, in context — not the label at the top of the page, its length, or general assertions about what a particular kind of document "always" or "never" contains.

Checklist Before Signing

Before signing any heads of agreement, letter of intent, memorandum of understanding or term sheet:

1. Confirm which provisions are intended to be binding and which are not — and check the wording supports that intention.
2. Confirm "subject to contract" wording is used consistently if the substantive terms are non-binding.
3. Confirm the exclusivity period, scope and remedy are reasonable and properly drafted to avoid penalty characterisation.
4. Confirm the confidentiality clause covers all information categories and survives termination.
5. Confirm the deposit clause specifies the circumstances for refund and forfeiture.
6. Confirm the due diligence clause specifies scope, timetable, satisfaction standard and consequences.
7. Confirm the finance clause specifies amount, lender, deadline and consequences.
8. Confirm all third-party consents (landlord, franchisor, regulator, board, shareholders) are identified as conditions.
9. Confirm the timetable to long-form documentation is realistic and achievable.
10. Confirm the governing law, jurisdiction and dispute resolution clauses are stated.
11. Confirm cost allocation is clear (typically each party bears its own).
12. Confirm the signatories are properly authorised to bind their respective entities.

When Legal Advice Should Be Obtained

Engage a commercial lawyer before signing the heads of agreement — not after. The HoA shapes the entire transaction: it determines the exclusivity period, commits the parties to a structure, sets the framework for due diligence and warranty negotiation, and (where binding provisions are included) creates legal obligations that the courts will enforce.

Parke Lawyers acts for Australian buyers, sellers, investors and joint venture parties across a broad range of commercial transactions:

• business sales, share sales and asset sales;
• commercial property acquisitions and sales;
• franchise transactions (grant, transfer and renewal);
• joint ventures, investments and capital raises;
• private equity and venture capital term sheets;
• licensing, distribution and supply transactions; and
• cross-border transactions involving Australian assets.

See our service pages: Commercial & Business Law and Litigation & Dispute Resolution. Where preliminary documents go wrong and disputes arise during negotiations, see our companion guides on Resolving a Business Dispute Before Court and Letter of Demand: What to Do. Reviewed by Jim Parke, Lawyer & Chartered Accountant.

Frequently Asked Questions