The [principal contractor] (in addition and without prejudice, any other rights or remedies that the other party may have, whether under the law, common law or others) to compensate and compensate the other and to compensate others without prejudice to and against all acts, rights, claims, commitments, damages, costs, losses or expenses (including , but not limited to consequential damages, loss of reputation and all interest, penalties, legal fees and other professional expenses and expenses resulting from a violation or non-compliance by [the subcontractor] of one of the provisions of this agreement. The application of mutual detention rules in industry contracts is a common practice. In fact, some operators have their own version of the IMHH. However, these are limited to certain contracts or companies, which has led to the development of a branch system. However, there are a number of defects in this system that reduce its value to contractors and, as presented, to the industry as a whole. First, the language used in such acts is chosen by the operator. As a general rule, it is not possible to amend this text for the simple and valid reason why it would create discrepancies in the obligations of the parties in a regime that relies heavily on reciprocity to function – numerous case reports have shown how unfair this reciprocity is in the guarantee of non-regulation and that sufficient consideration is seen in this way that it is not construed as an unreal promise. This could mean that you do not have definitions that are not of an industry. On the other hand, this could lead to a definition more focused on the risk profile of the operator than on that which would be sufficient for contractors. Second, and perhaps from a careful risk management perspective, do you know which other contractors are involved in such a program and if, therefore, you are fully protected when you arrive at a project workstation? Some operators offer a website where a list of signatories can be verified, but here is the friction; the operator, without exception, assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the list and why should it? It has no interest in knowing whether other contractors are protected or not; the operator itself is already protected, directly or indirectly, by its contracts with any company in its supply chain.