In many business acquisitions and commercial real estate transactions, the letter of intent (“LOI”) serves as a preliminary, non-binding roadmap to a future purchase agreement. Sophisticated sellers, however, understand that the practical effect of an LOI can be far more significant than its legal label suggests.
Certain buyer-favorable LOI provisions can effectively tie up a seller’s business or property for months while giving the buyer little or no meaningful commitment in return. When an LOI includes an extended due diligence period, a lengthy exclusivity obligation, no earnest money deposit, no deadline for signing a definitive agreement, and a broad unilateral right for the buyer to terminate “for any reason,” the seller should view the arrangement with extreme caution.
In substance, the seller may be granting the buyer a free option — one that costs the buyer nothing, exposes the seller to significant opportunity costs, and allows the buyer to walk away at the last moment without consequence.
The Problem with Excessively Long Due Diligence Periods
Reasonable due diligence periods are expected in legitimate transactions. Buyers need time to review financial statements, contracts, litigation exposure, regulatory compliance, operations, and other material matters.
The issue arises when the due diligence period becomes unnecessarily long and untethered from objective milestones.
An extended diligence period can create several risks for the seller:
- The business remains effectively “off the market” during the buyer’s review.
- Employees, customers, vendors, and lenders may become unsettled if rumors of the transaction circulate.
- Management may become distracted from operations.
- Market conditions may change.
- Other potential buyers may lose interest or pursue alternative opportunities.
A sophisticated seller should ask an important question: if the buyer truly believes in the transaction, why does it need an unusually long unilateral evaluation period without meaningful commitment?
In many cases, extended diligence periods are less about investigation and more about optionality. The buyer is preserving flexibility while the seller absorbs the carrying costs and uncertainty.
Exclusivity Without Consideration Is a Major Warning Sign
Exclusivity — sometimes called a “no-shop” provision — prevents the seller from negotiating with other prospective buyers for a defined period.
Short, reasonable exclusivity periods can be appropriate when tied to:
- a demonstrated commitment by the buyer,
- active diligence,
- financing progress, and
- movement toward definitive documents.
However, a long exclusivity period combined with minimal buyer obligations should concern every seller.
Under these circumstances, the seller is:
- prohibited from seeking alternative offers,
- unable to create competitive pressure,
- exposed to lost opportunities if the deal collapses, and
- effectively dependent on a buyer who may have no genuine obligation to close.
The imbalance becomes even more problematic when the buyer can terminate at will while the seller remains contractually locked into exclusivity.
From a practical perspective, the seller has surrendered leverage while receiving little in return.
No Deposit Means the Buyer Has No Real Skin in the Game
Earnest money deposits serve an important commercial purpose. Even when refundable during diligence, a deposit demonstrates seriousness and imposes at least some financial consequence if the transaction fails under certain circumstances.
An LOI with:
- no deposit,
- no breakup fee,
- no expense reimbursement obligation, and
- no other economic commitment
creates a troubling asymmetry.
The buyer incurs little downside risk while the seller commits substantial time, expense, and opportunity cost.
Without financial commitment, the buyer may:
- continue “shopping” the market,
- use the seller’s confidential information strategically,
- attempt to renegotiate price late in the process, or
- simply abandon the transaction if market conditions shift.
In effect, the seller may be financing the buyer’s exploratory process.
The Most Dangerous Provision: The Ability to Walk Away at Any Time for Any Reason
Perhaps the clearest red flag is an LOI that allows the buyer to terminate the transaction at any time, for any reason, including immediately before closing.
While some level of conditionality is common in acquisitions, sophisticated sellers should distinguish between:
- legitimate closing conditions, and
- unrestricted discretionary termination rights.
A buyer that retains absolute discretion until the final moment has not meaningfully committed to the transaction.
This dynamic creates substantial leverage for the buyer late in the deal process. After months of diligence, exclusivity, legal fees, accounting costs, and operational disruption, sellers often become psychologically and economically invested in closing.
At that point, buyers may attempt:
- price reductions,
- revised deal structures,
- expanded indemnification demands,
- employment concessions,
- seller financing requests, or
- other last-minute renegotiations.
Because the seller has lost time and other opportunities, it may feel pressure to accept terms it would have rejected earlier.
This strategy is commonly referred to as “retrading.”
No Deadline for a Definitive Purchase Agreement Creates Endless Uncertainty
A well-structured LOI should include clear transactional milestones, including:
- diligence deadlines,
- drafting schedules,
- financing milestones, and
- a target date for executing definitive agreements.
Without these guardrails, the process can drift indefinitely.
An LOI that lacks a deadline for signing a binding purchase agreement allows the buyer to:
- prolong negotiations,
- continuously revisit terms,
- preserve optionality without commitment, and
- maintain exclusivity pressure on the seller.
The absence of a firm timeline often signals one of two things:
- the buyer is not sufficiently prepared or capitalized; or
- the buyer wants maximum flexibility with minimal accountability.
Neither scenario benefits the seller.
When These Terms Appear Together, the Seller Should Be Extremely Cautious
Any one of these provisions may be negotiable in the right context. The real concern arises when they appear together:
- lengthy diligence,
- extended exclusivity,
- no deposit,
- no obligation to execute definitive agreements,
- and unrestricted termination rights.
Collectively, these terms can transform the LOI into a virtually risk-free option contract for the buyer.
Meanwhile, the seller bears:
- transaction costs,
- business disruption,
- lost market opportunities,
- confidentiality exposure,
- and significant uncertainty.
Sophisticated sellers should recognize the economic reality behind the document, not merely the label “non-binding LOI.”
Protective Measures Sellers Should Consider
Sellers can reduce risk by negotiating more balanced LOI terms, including:
- Shorter Exclusivity Periods. Exclusivity should be narrowly tailored and tied to measurable progress.
- Defined Diligence Milestones. Require diligence completion dates and regular buyer deliverables.
- Earnest Money Deposits. Even partially refundable deposits help align incentives.
- Outside Dates. Set firm deadlines for execution of definitive agreements and closing.
- Limited Termination Rights. Termination should be tied to objective conditions rather than pure discretion.
- Expense Reimbursement Provisions. In some transactions, sellers may negotiate reimbursement if the buyer walks away without cause after substantial diligence.
- Continued Marketing Rights. Some sellers negotiate carve-outs permitting limited discussions with backup buyers.
Final Thoughts. A letter of intent should facilitate a path toward closing — not provide one party with a free, riskless option while the other assumes all meaningful exposure.
When a proposed LOI gives the buyer:
- extensive time,
- exclusive control,
- unrestricted exit rights,
- and no financial commitment,
the seller should pause and carefully evaluate whether the buyer is truly committed to the transaction or merely reserving the opportunity to decide later.
The best LOIs balance flexibility with accountability. When that balance disappears, sellers should treat the document not as a routine preliminary agreement, but as a significant business risk requiring careful legal and strategic review.
It is critical for sellers to obtain experienced legal counsel during the Letter of Intent stage of a transaction. The party benefiting most from the proposed terms often minimizes the importance of legal review by characterizing the LOI as “non-binding” and assuring the seller that problematic provisions can simply be renegotiated later. In practice, however, many sellers focus primarily on the purchase price rather than the underlying terms, only to discover later that they have already surrendered significant leverage long before a definitive agreement is signed.
Contact us today to discuss your business sale and ensure your transaction is structured for success.
Author: Kelly Roberts
Attorney Kelly Roberts brings over fifteen years of focused experience helping business owners turn legal complexities into opportunities. From forming a new company to negotiating contracts, structuring partnerships, or buying and selling businesses, Kelly provides practical, results-driven legal guidance. Kelly earned her Juris Doctorate from the University of Miami School of Law.
Disclaimer: The information in this blog post (“post”) is provided for general informational purposes only and may not reflect the current law in your jurisdiction or the jurisdiction applicable to your issue/matter. No information contained in this post should be construed as legal advice from Roberts Law, PLLC or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader of this post should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included in, or accessible through, this Post without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from a lawyer licensed in the recipient’s state, country or other appropriate licensing jurisdiction.
