employment legal-terms employer
Is consideration for services different than compensation?
<blockquote>
<p>The Company shall pay [X] Japanese yen per month (excluding applicable taxes) to the Service Provider as consideration for the performance of the Services (hereinafter referred to as the &quot;Remuneration&quot;). The Company shall pay the Service Provider the amount of remuneration stated in the offer letter as the Compensation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here, is the service provider going to get only X yen/month or X + offer letter amount yen/month?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is consideration for services different than compensation?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>They essentially mean the same. Both terms refer to a payment (in the form of money or otherwise) in response to, or expectation for, a good or service the counterparty did or will provide.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Here, is the service provider going to get only X yen/month or X + offer letter amount yen/month?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This cannot be answered because it is not clear whether the amount in the &quot;offer&quot; letter is a one-time payment or a monthly payment, although it likely is the latter.</p>
<p>Assuming that the offer letter is in terms of amount/month, the most reasonable interpretation is that the service provider will get either X or amount stated in the letter, not both. That is because a contract is an <em>exchange</em> of considerations (or of promises), and it appears that the provider's performance can be associated to only one of X or the amount stated in the letter. The service provider might avail himself of the doctrine of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem" rel="nofollow noreferrer">contra proferentem</a> to claim an entitlement to whichever quantity is greater.</p>
<p>That being said, the utter sloppiness of that clause suggests that also the rest of the contract is replete with errors and ambiguities. It is in the parties' best interest to ensure that the terms of the contract are clear.</p>
<p>One example is the label of &quot;Remuneration&quot;. To reasonable person it is obvious that the label refers to the <em>consideration</em> rather than <em>the performance of Services</em>. However, misplaced labels in other clauses can make it needlessly difficult to ascertain the parties' intent. Likewise it makes no sense to define &quot;Remuneration&quot; in regard to performance of services, and immediately thereafter use the term in reference to an external document.</p>
