Cannabis breeding businesses rely heavily on partnerships and contractual relationships to access markets, share resources, transfer technology, and scale operations. Unlike traditional agriculture where informal relationships and handshake deals remain common, the regulated cannabis industry requires formal contracts addressing complex intellectual property rights, regulatory compliance obligations, quality standards, and risk allocation. Breeding businesses engage in diverse partnership structures including genetics licensing agreements, joint ventures, research collaborations, cultivation partnerships, and distribution arrangements—each requiring tailored contract terms and negotiation strategies. Successful partnerships balance mutual benefit with clear rights and obligations, align partner incentives with business objectives, and establish mechanisms for dispute resolution and relationship management. Poor contract negotiation leads to misaligned expectations, intellectual property disputes, quality control failures, and costly litigation undermining business value. This article provides practical frameworks for structuring and negotiating breeding business partnerships, covering essential contract terms, negotiation strategies, due diligence processes, and relationship management approaches enabling successful long-term collaborations.

Partnership Types and Structures

Genetics Licensing Agreements

Genetics licensing represents the most common partnership structure for breeding businesses, allowing cultivators or other breeders to produce and commercialize proprietary varieties in exchange for royalty payments or licensing fees. Licensing agreements transfer specific rights to use genetic material while retaining breeder ownership of underlying intellectual property. License structures range from simple one-time seed purchases to complex exclusive territory licenses with ongoing royalties, technical support, and performance obligations. Well-structured licensing agreements clearly define licensed rights, territory, exclusivity terms, compensation structure, quality standards, and intellectual property protections.

Exclusive licenses grant licensees sole rights to produce and market varieties within defined territories or market segments, providing market protection incentivating substantial investment in variety commercialization. Exclusive licenses typically command higher royalty rates and include minimum performance requirements ensuring licensees actively develop markets. However, exclusivity limits breeder flexibility to pursue alternative partnerships if licensees underperform. Exclusive license terms should include performance milestones, sales targets, or market development requirements with reversion to non-exclusive status or termination rights if targets are not met. Performance-based exclusivity aligns licensee incentives with breeder market development objectives.

Non-exclusive licenses allow multiple licensees to produce and market varieties simultaneously, maximizing market penetration and revenue potential while maintaining breeder flexibility. Non-exclusive structures work well for broadly adapted varieties with wide market appeal or when targeting diverse market segments requiring different expertise. However, non-exclusive licensing reduces individual licensee incentives for market development investment and may create price competition among licensees. Non-exclusive licenses typically involve lower royalty rates but higher total volume. Breeders should carefully evaluate exclusivity trade-offs based on variety characteristics, market structure, and commercialization strategy.

Joint Venture Partnerships

Joint ventures create new legal entities with shared ownership between breeding businesses and partners, combining complementary capabilities, sharing investment risk, and aligning long-term interests. Joint ventures work well for substantial projects requiring significant capital investment, shared operational control, or long-term market development where simple licensing arrangements provide insufficient partner commitment. Common joint venture structures include breeding program collaborations, production facility partnerships, and market development ventures. Joint ventures require more complex legal structures than licensing agreements but create stronger partner alignment and shared success incentives.

Equity joint ventures establish new companies with ownership stakes proportional to partner contributions of capital, intellectual property, expertise, or other resources. Equity structures clearly define ownership interests, profit distribution, governance rights, and exit mechanisms. Ownership percentages should reflect realistic valuations of partner contributions including intellectual property, operational capabilities, market access, and capital investment. Breeding businesses contributing genetics and expertise should ensure equity stakes adequately value intellectual property contributions beyond simple capital investment. Independent valuation of IP contributions provides objective basis for ownership negotiations.

Contractual joint ventures operate through detailed agreements defining partner rights and obligations without creating separate legal entities. Contractual structures offer greater flexibility and lower formation costs than equity ventures but require more detailed agreements addressing operational control, profit sharing, and decision-making authority. Contractual joint ventures work well for shorter-term projects or when partners prefer to maintain separate corporate structures. However, contractual arrangements may face greater challenges in dispute resolution and partner alignment than equity structures with clear ownership stakes.

Research and Development Collaborations

Research collaborations between breeding businesses and universities, research institutions, or other companies accelerate variety development, access specialized expertise, and share research costs. R&D partnerships range from informal material transfer agreements to complex multi-year research programs with shared intellectual property rights. Research collaborations provide access to advanced breeding technologies, analytical capabilities, and scientific expertise often unavailable in commercial breeding operations. However, research partnerships require careful intellectual property management ensuring commercial freedom to operate while respecting institutional IP policies and publication requirements.

Sponsored research agreements fund specific research projects at universities or research institutions with defined deliverables, timelines, and intellectual property terms. Sponsored research provides access to specialized expertise and facilities while maintaining commercial control over research direction and IP ownership. Agreements should clearly specify research objectives, funding amounts and payment schedules, deliverable requirements, publication rights, and IP ownership. Breeding businesses typically seek exclusive commercial rights to research results while allowing academic partners to publish findings after appropriate delays protecting commercial interests. Negotiating IP terms with universities requires understanding institutional policies and technology transfer office requirements.

Collaborative research agreements involve mutual contributions of resources, expertise, or materials from multiple partners working toward shared research objectives. Collaborative structures require clear agreements on IP ownership, commercialization rights, and benefit sharing. Common IP frameworks include joint ownership of inventions, licensing rights to partner contributions, or allocation of IP rights by field of use. Joint IP ownership creates complications in commercialization requiring unanimous partner consent for licensing or enforcement. Breeders should generally seek exclusive commercial rights in cannabis applications while granting partners rights in other fields or research applications. Clear IP frameworks prevent future disputes over commercialization rights.

Essential Contract Terms

Intellectual Property Provisions

Intellectual property clauses represent the most critical contract terms for breeding businesses, defining ownership rights, usage permissions, and protection obligations for genetic material and related know-how. IP provisions should clearly specify what intellectual property is being licensed or transferred, what rights are granted, territorial and field-of-use limitations, and obligations to protect IP confidentiality and prevent unauthorized use. Ambiguous IP terms lead to disputes over genetics ownership, unauthorized variety propagation, and loss of trade secret protection undermining breeding business value.

Licensed rights definitions must precisely describe what genetic material is covered including specific varieties, breeding lines, or germplasm collections. Variety descriptions should reference unique identifiers, genetic fingerprints, or deposit samples preventing disputes over variety identity. License grants should specify permitted uses including cultivation, breeding, seed production, or commercial sale. Restrictions on breeding use, variety improvement, or creation of derivative varieties protect breeder IP while potentially limiting licensee flexibility. Breeders should carefully consider whether to allow licensees to conduct selection within licensed varieties or use genetics in breeding programs, balancing IP protection with licensee needs for variety adaptation.

Confidentiality and trade secret protections prevent disclosure of proprietary breeding methods, parental line identities, or other confidential information shared during partnerships. Confidentiality clauses should define what information is considered confidential, obligations to protect confidential information, permitted disclosures, and duration of confidentiality obligations. Perpetual confidentiality for trade secrets protects long-term breeding program value. Agreements should require return or destruction of confidential materials upon contract termination. Employee and contractor confidentiality obligations should extend to partner organizations ensuring comprehensive protection.

Quality Standards and Performance Requirements

Quality standards ensure licensed varieties or partnership outputs meet breeder specifications maintaining brand reputation and market acceptance. Quality provisions should define measurable performance criteria, testing protocols, certification requirements, and remedies for quality failures. Breeding businesses must balance rigorous quality standards protecting brand value with realistic requirements partners can consistently achieve. Overly stringent standards create compliance burdens and disputes while inadequate standards risk quality failures damaging breeder reputation.

Variety performance specifications should define expected characteristics including morphology, cannabinoid profiles, yield parameters, and disease resistance. Specifications should include acceptable ranges recognizing environmental variation while ensuring variety integrity. Testing requirements should specify analytical methods, testing frequency, and acceptable laboratories. Breeders should provide reference samples or standards enabling partners to verify variety authenticity and performance. Performance monitoring systems should include periodic audits, sample testing, and field inspections verifying compliance with quality standards.

Cultivation protocol requirements ensure partners follow recommended practices optimizing variety performance and maintaining genetic integrity. Protocol specifications should cover propagation methods, environmental conditions, nutrient management, and pest control approaches. Detailed protocols reduce performance variability and quality failures while creating dependencies on breeder technical support. However, overly prescriptive protocols may conflict with partner operational preferences or local conditions. Protocols should distinguish between mandatory requirements affecting variety performance and recommended practices allowing partner flexibility. Technical support provisions should specify training, troubleshooting assistance, and protocol updates included in partnership agreements.

Financial Terms and Compensation Structures

Financial provisions define payment obligations, royalty calculations, payment timing, and audit rights ensuring fair compensation for breeding businesses while providing partners with economically viable arrangements. Compensation structures should align with partnership value creation, market conditions, and partner capabilities. Common structures include upfront licensing fees, per-unit royalties, revenue sharing, or milestone payments. Hybrid structures combining multiple payment types balance immediate revenue with long-term partnership value while sharing market risk between partners.

Royalty rate negotiations require understanding market standards, variety value, and partner economics. Cannabis genetics royalties typically range from 5-15% of wholesale seed prices or 1-5% of flower revenue depending on variety differentiation, market exclusivity, and included services. Higher royalty rates apply to premium genetics with strong market differentiation, exclusive licenses, or comprehensive technical support. Lower rates apply to commodity genetics, non-exclusive licenses, or situations where partners bear substantial commercialization costs. Royalty structures should consider partner profit margins ensuring economically sustainable arrangements. Sliding scale royalties based on volume or revenue incentivize partner growth while sharing success.

Minimum payment guarantees ensure breeding businesses receive baseline compensation regardless of partner performance, protecting against underperforming partnerships while incentivizing partner commitment. Minimum guarantees work well with exclusive licenses where breeder opportunity costs are high. Guarantee amounts should reflect realistic market potential while remaining achievable for partners. Guarantees typically apply annually with cumulative shortfalls carried forward. Failure to meet minimum guarantees may trigger exclusivity loss or termination rights. Minimum guarantees should be negotiated carefully balancing revenue protection with partnership viability.

Term, Termination, and Renewal Provisions

Contract duration and termination terms define partnership timelines, exit mechanisms, and conditions for relationship continuation or dissolution. Term provisions should balance partner needs for investment security with breeder flexibility to respond to market changes or partner performance issues. Initial terms typically range from 3-10 years depending on partnership type and required investment. Longer terms provide partners with security for substantial investments while shorter terms maintain breeder flexibility. Automatic renewal provisions with advance notice requirements balance continuity with exit flexibility.

Termination rights allow parties to exit partnerships under specified conditions including material breach, insolvency, regulatory violations, or performance failures. Termination clauses should clearly define triggering events, notice requirements, cure periods, and post-termination obligations. Material breach definitions should specify significant violations justifying termination versus minor issues requiring correction. Cure periods allow partners to remedy breaches before termination, typically 30-90 days depending on breach severity. Immediate termination rights should apply to serious violations including IP misappropriation, regulatory violations, or insolvency.

Post-termination obligations address genetics disposition, confidentiality continuation, and transition arrangements following partnership conclusion. Agreements should specify whether partners must destroy or return genetic material, cease variety production, and sell remaining inventory. Sell-off periods allow partners to deplete existing inventory, typically 6-12 months, balancing partner interests with breeder market control. Confidentiality obligations should survive termination indefinitely for trade secrets. Non-compete provisions may restrict partner activities following termination, though enforceability varies by jurisdiction. Clear post-termination terms prevent disputes over genetics use and market competition after partnerships end.

Negotiation Strategies and Tactics

Preparation and Research

Effective negotiation begins with thorough preparation including partner research, market analysis, and clear objective setting. Preparation enables negotiators to understand partner motivations, identify leverage points, and develop realistic negotiation ranges. Breeding businesses should research potential partners’ business models, financial condition, market position, and reputation before negotiations. Understanding partner needs, constraints, and alternatives enables development of mutually beneficial proposals and identification of value creation opportunities beyond simple price negotiations.

Market research establishes realistic baseline expectations for contract terms including royalty rates, exclusivity provisions, and performance requirements. Breeders should analyze comparable licensing deals, market pricing, and industry standards providing objective benchmarks for negotiations. However, market standards should inform rather than dictate terms as unique circumstances may justify different arrangements. Proprietary market intelligence from industry contacts, trade associations, or advisors provides valuable context for negotiations. Breeders should develop target terms, acceptable ranges, and walk-away thresholds before negotiations begin.

Objective prioritization clarifies which terms are essential versus negotiable enabling strategic trade-offs during negotiations. Breeding businesses should identify must-have terms protecting core interests including IP protection, quality control, and minimum compensation. Secondary objectives may include preferred payment structures, territory definitions, or support obligations where flexibility exists. Understanding objective priorities enables negotiators to make strategic concessions on lower-priority terms while protecting essential interests. Preparation should include developing multiple proposal scenarios with different term combinations achieving core objectives through alternative structures.

Value Creation and Integrative Bargaining

Successful negotiations focus on creating mutual value rather than simply dividing fixed resources. Integrative bargaining identifies opportunities for both parties to benefit through creative deal structures, resource sharing, or risk allocation matching partner capabilities and preferences. Value creation requires understanding partner needs beyond simple financial terms including market access, technical support, risk mitigation, or strategic positioning. Breeding businesses should explore how partnerships can create value for both parties through complementary capabilities, shared resources, or market development.

Technical support and training provisions create value for partners while generating additional revenue and strengthening relationships for breeding businesses. Partners often value cultivation protocols, troubleshooting assistance, and market development support as much as genetics themselves. Breeders can structure tiered support levels with basic support included in licensing fees and premium services available for additional compensation. Support provisions create ongoing partner engagement and dependencies on breeder expertise while generating recurring revenue. However, support obligations should be clearly defined preventing unlimited service expectations.

Risk sharing mechanisms allocate partnership risks according to party capabilities and risk tolerance creating more sustainable arrangements. Performance-based royalties share market risk between breeders and partners with payments tied to actual sales rather than fixed fees. Minimum guarantees with performance adjustments balance breeder revenue protection with partner flexibility. Quality assurance provisions allocate risks of variety performance issues with clear responsibilities for testing, remediation, and liability. Effective risk allocation creates more resilient partnerships surviving market fluctuations and operational challenges.

Negotiation Tactics and Communication

Negotiation tactics influence partnership outcomes through strategic positioning, communication approaches, and relationship building. Effective negotiators balance assertiveness in protecting core interests with flexibility in finding mutually acceptable solutions. Opening positions should be ambitious but defensible, providing negotiating room while maintaining credibility. Anchoring negotiations with initial proposals influences subsequent discussions, though extreme positions may damage relationship building. Breeders should present opening terms with clear rationale based on market standards, variety value, or partnership benefits.

Principled negotiation focuses on objective criteria and mutual interests rather than positional bargaining over specific terms. Negotiators should emphasize shared objectives including successful variety commercialization, market development, and long-term partnership value. Objective criteria including market comparables, industry standards, or independent valuations provide neutral bases for resolving disagreements. Principled approaches build collaborative relationships and creative problem-solving rather than adversarial positioning. However, principled negotiation requires good faith from all parties and may be less effective with purely transactional partners.

Relationship building during negotiations establishes foundations for successful long-term partnerships beyond contract terms. Negotiators should demonstrate respect, professionalism, and genuine interest in partner success. Personal connections and trust facilitate difficult negotiations and future problem-solving. However, relationship focus should not compromise essential business interests or lead to unfavorable terms. Effective negotiators balance relationship building with clear communication of non-negotiable requirements. Post-negotiation relationship management requires ongoing communication, performance monitoring, and collaborative problem-solving maintaining partnership value.

Due Diligence and Risk Assessment

Partner Evaluation and Background Research

Thorough due diligence on potential partners reduces risks of partnership failures, regulatory violations, or reputational damage. Partner evaluation should assess financial stability, operational capabilities, regulatory compliance, reputation, and strategic alignment. Due diligence intensity should scale with partnership scope and risk with major joint ventures requiring comprehensive investigation while simple licensing deals may need only basic verification. Breeding businesses should develop standardized due diligence checklists ensuring consistent partner evaluation.

Financial due diligence evaluates partner solvency, profitability, and ability to meet financial obligations including royalty payments, investment commitments, or operational funding. Financial review should include recent financial statements, credit reports, and banking references. Partners with weak financial positions may fail to meet payment obligations or lack resources for effective variety commercialization. However, early-stage partners may have limited financial history while offering strong growth potential. Financial assessment should consider both current stability and future prospects. Personal guarantees or parent company guarantees may mitigate financial risks with smaller partners.

Operational due diligence assesses partner capabilities to successfully cultivate varieties, maintain quality standards, and develop markets. Operational review should include facility inspections, cultivation protocol assessment, quality management systems, and technical staff qualifications. Partners lacking appropriate facilities, expertise, or systems risk variety performance failures damaging breeder reputation. Operational gaps may be addressed through technical support provisions, facility improvements, or phased partnership implementation. Due diligence should verify partners possess or can develop capabilities required for successful variety commercialization.

Regulatory and Compliance Verification

Regulatory due diligence verifies partners maintain required licenses, comply with applicable regulations, and follow industry best practices. Regulatory violations by partners can expose breeding businesses to enforcement actions, license suspensions, or reputational damage. Due diligence should verify current license status, review compliance history, and assess regulatory management systems. Partners with compliance violations, pending enforcement actions, or weak regulatory systems present elevated risks. Breeding businesses should carefully evaluate whether partnership benefits justify regulatory risks.

License verification confirms partners hold appropriate cultivation, processing, or distribution licenses for intended activities. License review should verify license types, authorized activities, production limits, and expiration dates. Licenses should cover partnership activities including variety cultivation, seed production, or commercial distribution. Partners operating without appropriate licenses or exceeding license scope create legal risks for breeding businesses. License verification should include direct confirmation with regulatory agencies rather than relying solely on partner representations.

Compliance system assessment evaluates partner processes for maintaining regulatory compliance including record-keeping, testing, security, and reporting. Strong compliance systems indicate professional operations and reduce regulatory risks. Assessment should review standard operating procedures, staff training, audit results, and corrective action processes. Partners with robust compliance systems and professional management present lower regulatory risks than operations with informal processes or compliance violations. Compliance assessment may identify areas requiring improvement before partnership implementation.

Intellectual Property Due Diligence

IP due diligence verifies breeding businesses own or control genetics being licensed and identifies potential IP conflicts or third-party rights. IP verification prevents situations where breeders license genetics they don’t own or that infringe others’ rights, creating liability and partnership failures. Due diligence should review variety development history, parent line sources, and any third-party materials used in breeding programs. Breeding businesses should maintain detailed records documenting variety development and IP ownership supporting due diligence verification.

Freedom to operate analysis assesses whether variety production and commercialization may infringe third-party patents, plant variety protection, or other IP rights. Freedom to operate review should identify relevant patents or variety rights in target markets and evaluate infringement risks. Cannabis IP landscape remains complex with numerous patents and variety protection applications creating potential conflicts. Legal counsel should conduct freedom to operate analysis for significant partnerships or high-value varieties. IP insurance may mitigate infringement risks in some situations.

Third-party rights verification identifies any existing licenses, material transfer agreements, or other obligations affecting genetics use or commercialization. Prior agreements may restrict commercial use, require benefit sharing, or impose other limitations on variety licensing. Breeding businesses should disclose any third-party obligations to partners and ensure partnership terms comply with existing commitments. Failure to disclose third-party rights creates liability and may invalidate partnership agreements. Clear IP ownership and freedom from encumbrances provides strongest foundation for partnerships.

Contract Management and Relationship Maintenance

Performance Monitoring and Reporting

Ongoing performance monitoring ensures partners meet contractual obligations, maintain quality standards, and achieve commercialization objectives. Monitoring systems should track key performance indicators including production volumes, sales revenue, royalty payments, quality metrics, and market development activities. Regular reporting requirements provide visibility into partnership performance enabling early identification of issues requiring attention. Reporting frequency should balance information needs with partner administrative burden, typically quarterly for financial reports and annually for comprehensive performance reviews.

Sales and royalty reporting systems track variety production and sales enabling accurate royalty calculations and market intelligence. Reports should specify production volumes, sales quantities, pricing, and calculated royalty amounts. Detailed reporting provides data for market analysis and variety performance assessment beyond royalty calculation. Reporting formats should be standardized across partners enabling aggregation and comparison. Electronic reporting systems reduce administrative burden and improve data accuracy. Breeding businesses should verify reported data through periodic audits or third-party verification.

Quality monitoring programs verify partners maintain variety integrity and performance standards through periodic testing and inspections. Monitoring should include genetic authentication testing, chemical profiling, and morphological verification. Testing frequency depends on partnership maturity and past performance with new partners requiring more intensive monitoring. Field inspections verify cultivation practices and identify potential quality issues. Quality monitoring protects brand reputation and ensures consistent variety performance across partners. Monitoring results should be shared with partners providing feedback for continuous improvement.

Dispute Resolution and Problem-Solving

Effective dispute resolution mechanisms address partnership conflicts before they escalate to litigation damaging relationships and business value. Contracts should include tiered dispute resolution processes beginning with informal negotiation, progressing through mediation, and ultimately allowing arbitration or litigation. Early-stage dispute resolution through direct communication and negotiation resolves most conflicts efficiently while preserving relationships. Formal processes provide structured approaches when informal resolution fails.

Mediation provisions require parties to attempt resolution through neutral third-party mediators before pursuing litigation or arbitration. Mediation offers flexible, confidential dispute resolution preserving business relationships while reducing costs compared to formal proceedings. Mediation works well for disputes involving business judgment, relationship issues, or situations where ongoing partnership is desired. However, mediation requires good faith participation and may not resolve disputes involving clear contract breaches or bad faith conduct. Mediation clauses should specify mediator selection processes, cost allocation, and timelines.

Arbitration provisions require disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration rather than court litigation. Arbitration offers faster resolution, specialized arbitrators with industry expertise, and confidential proceedings compared to public litigation. Arbitration works well for technical disputes, IP conflicts, or situations where confidentiality is important. However, arbitration limits appeal rights and may involve substantial costs. Arbitration clauses should specify arbitration rules, arbitrator selection, hearing location, and cost allocation. Breeding businesses should carefully evaluate arbitration versus litigation based on likely dispute types and jurisdictional considerations.

Relationship Evolution and Adaptation

Successful long-term partnerships require ongoing relationship management, communication, and adaptation to changing circumstances. Partnership agreements should include mechanisms for contract amendments, performance reviews, and relationship evolution. Regular partnership meetings provide forums for discussing performance, addressing concerns, and identifying improvement opportunities. Formal annual reviews assess partnership performance against objectives and adjust terms or strategies as needed. Relationship management requires investment in communication and collaboration beyond contract compliance.

Contract amendment processes enable partnerships to adapt to market changes, regulatory developments, or performance issues. Amendment provisions should specify requirements for contract modifications including mutual consent, written documentation, and approval processes. Significant amendments may require renegotiation while minor adjustments can follow streamlined processes. Flexibility to adjust terms maintains partnership relevance as circumstances change. However, amendment processes should protect core terms from unilateral changes. Regular contract reviews identify areas requiring updates ensuring agreements remain current.

Partnership expansion opportunities may emerge as relationships mature and partners demonstrate capabilities. Expansion may include additional varieties, expanded territories, new market segments, or enhanced collaboration. Successful initial partnerships provide foundations for broader relationships creating value for both parties. Expansion terms should be negotiated recognizing established relationship value while ensuring fair terms for new activities. Right of first refusal provisions give existing partners priority for new opportunities while maintaining breeder flexibility if partners decline. Strategic partnership development focuses on deepening relationships with proven partners rather than constantly seeking new partnerships.

Resources

1. Lemley, M.A., Menell, P.S., & Merges, R.P. (2016). “Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age: 2016.” Clause 8 Publishing. Available at Berkeley Law

2. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” 3rd Edition. Penguin Books. ISBN: 978-0143118756

3. Malackowski, J.E., & Cardoza, K. (2010). “Valuation and Exploitation of Intellectual Property and Intangible Assets.” American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. ISBN: 978-1858112817

4. Razgaitis, R. (2009). “Valuation and Pricing of Technology-Based Intellectual Property: Principles and Methods.” 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN: 978-0471250494

5. Hagedoorn, J., & Hesen, G. (2007). “Contract Law and the Governance of Inter-Firm Technology Partnerships: An Analysis of Different Modes of Partnering and Their Contractual Implications.” Journal of Management Studies, 44(3): 342-366. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00679.x

6. Lerner, J., & Malmendier, U. (2010). “Contractibility and the Design of Research Agreements.” American Economic Review, 100(1): 214-246. DOI: 10.1257/aer.100.1.214

7. Reuer, J.J., & Ariño, A. (2007). “Strategic Alliance Contracts: Dimensions and Determinants of Contractual Complexity.” Strategic Management Journal, 28(3): 313-330. DOI: 10.1002/smj.581

8. Crocker, K.J., & Reynolds, K.J. (1993). “The Efficiency of Incomplete Contracts: An Empirical Analysis of Air Force Engine Procurement.” RAND Journal of Economics, 24(1): 126-146. DOI: 10.2307/2555956

If you found this post interesting, consider hitting the “Buy me fertilizer” button below to chuck a few dollars in the pot. Your support helps this educational resource keep growing!

[This post assumes legal hemp/cannabis breeding in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.]