I have the clause BELOW in my subcontractor contract.

I have the clause BELOW in my subcontractor contract. I am an IT consultant and have an S-corp with myself as the only employee.

Lets say I start work at a client and work there for one month and the client tells me to leave. Since I worked there for a month, I should atleast get paid for the month. Can the clause below allow the client to NOT pay me for the one month that I worked?

11. Warranty of Performance. Subcontractor warrants that its services will be of professional quality conforming to generally accepted data processing practices and agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless 3i Infotech from any loss, claims, damages, expenses incurred/suffered by 3i Infotech as a result of any failure, omission, errors or delay in the performance of services by Subcontractor.

Medical Indemnity Agreements I am looking for information on the enforcibility…

Medical Indemnity Agreements
I am looking for information on the enforcibility of medical indemnity agreements. I have been asked to review a release of liability form for a youth program, but I am disturbed by much of the language. Are agreements that do
not except sole negligence enforcable in California? I know that they aren’t in relationship to contracts (i.e. construction contracts and Type 1 agreements) but I can’t find any information in regards to these types of agreements and medical treatment. The form I am reviewing is called a “Waiver of Liability and Authorization for Third pary Consent to Treatment”. Much of the language refers to holding an organization and its’ employees harmless from all liability regardless of how caused. My education in construction waivers says this in uninforcable language in California. Can someone give me some resources to check and sample forms that have held up in California courts?

”hold harmless” property settlement in divorce A man and woman divorce.

”hold harmless” property settlement in divorce
A man and woman divorce.
They had purchased a mobile home that was awarded to the woman. In the decree, signed by the judge, it says the man is to be ”held harmless” in regards to the payments on the mobile home, the woman is solely responsible. The woman defaults after 7 years, the mobile home is reposessed by the mobile home company it was purchased from. Can the mobile home company sue the man, who is to be ”held harmless”? They have informed the man that they are going to pursue this.
Thank you.