> There's certainly a "problem" worth solving here. I'm a lawyer, and it's crazy that I occasionally actually have to negotiate non-substantive parts of contracts like severance clauses. There really should be standardized boilerplate for at least some provisions (like you're doing), where companies can quickly say "we are using the common terms", and if another side pushes back it raises questions.

This is exactly how it should be.

The last thing I want is "Customer A pushed back against 'We are your exclusive supplier no matter your future price increases' to be "common".

Even worse, the "standard" terms that an employee usually agrees to.

If some side (actually, their lawyer) pushes back on something, then it's not "common", now is it?