Please sign in or register to continue.
IACCM membership gives you access a wide range of resources and services, including:
Make the most of your contracts and your career. Click below to learn more and upgrade now.
This is the home page for the Risk Management Group.
There is compelling data from a number of sources indicating the scale of invoicing error in business. In some cases, organizations are over-paying their suppliers by 5-7% - an amount that, if corrected, would transform their financial performance.
This webinar is to assist the attendee to avoid expensive mistakes and better achieve their contract outcomes.
Are you a "risk professional"? How do you know? Or do you use the services of "risk professionals"? How can you tell they're really professional?
Modern Slavery Legislation in Australia is set to be overhauled when State and Federal Modern Slavery Acts come into effect. Scott Alden, Holding Redlich, will take us through the implications to help end modern slavery-like practices in organizations and their supply chains, i.e. proposed mandatory measures and penalties of up to $1.1m.
IACCM has repeatedly pointed out that we spend most of our negotiating time on clauses that rarely matter. We negotiate terms like indemnity, limit of liability, and warranty almost ad nauseam, but they seldom play a role in actual business relationships. This webinar asks why?
I was recently having coffee with four other individuals involved in contracting for IT Professional Services. During the course of conversation one of the participants suggested that rather than having unlimited direct liability for certain aspects (breach of confidentiality, indemnification of third-party claims, gross negligence and willful misconduct) that EVERYTHING be limited to the extent permitted by law -- but then increase the limitation to a number that would cover the majority of potential issues ($5,000,000 USD was a suggestion). When questioned, the participant stated that when it comes to contracting parties where one has "deep pockets" and the other does not, having the unlimited liability may sound nice on paper, but in reality it is a one-way protection that benefits the party that does not have deep pockets. Effectively, if the party that does not have deep pocket had a very large claim against them, they could declare bankruptcy and later reorganize as a different business concern - while the deep pocket party with the same claim would be obligated to pay. Their perspective was in essence: No consequential damages; limit all direct damages to a pre-defined/agreed amount ($5,000,000 or amount that will cover 90%-95% of historic claims in the industry); and include indemnification from third-party claims in the cap. Thoughts?
Some (small and cash strapped) oil and gas operators are resorting to vendor financing agreements with major hardware suppliers / service providers as a way of raising the funding for their development projects. Is it really possible for the small operator, who may have limited alternatives for raising capital for his project, to negotiate a fair deal out of such arrangements. Does anyone have any experience of a vendor financing arrangement between a small operator and a major vendor which worked out well for the operator in the long run.
Our customer is not accepting limitation to direct damages stating that "failure of the Software means we won't be able to fulfill our obligation towards customers and our liability to them. Also any limitation to direct damages is not acceptable." They are demanding 150% CAP for LoL. Can you suggest some argument or some standard guidelines on the same? How can I secure my organisation interest?
Hi, I am dealing with a contract wherein Priority 1 and 2 is assigned based on user category who raised it. If user raising Incident is VIP user then it will be raised as P1 or P2 irrespective of severity of Incident. It leads to exposure to liability to my company when any breach of single incident raised by VIP impose liability on me. Also there is no defined process as minimum number of P1 & P2 tickets quota for applicability of penalty on breach. Is there any workaround to come out of this trap ? Can I propose some changes to this arrangement ?
Hello everyone, Following our webinar at the end of October, I am coming back with few recommendations on the available resources on IACCM: - Ask The Expert: Mitigating Cyber Risks with Third Parties - Asia Pacific Ask The Expert: Cyber Resilience - The role of contract in the Fourth Industrial Revolution - Ask The Expert: Data Protection - the global impact of GDPR In addition to presentations above, there are few white papers that can provide more details on what what ransomware is and how it works. See, for example: - Mcafee Understanding Ransomware and Strategies to Defeat it: https://www.mcafee.com/uk/resources/white-papers/wp-understanding-ransomware-strategies-defeat.pdf - The Wannacry Ransomware: http://cert-mu.govmu.org/English/Documents/White%20Papers/White%20Paper%20-%20The%20WannaCry%20Ransomware%20Attack.pdf It would be great to see your own thoughts or resources you find useful. Kind regards, Daniela
Company A enters contract with X for £0.5M (Implementation of IT system). No written agreement. Therefore implied terms and possible "fit for purpose" onerous obligation at common law. No liability cap. Very high risk. 18 months later. Co. A is acquired by Co. B who later wishes to hive-up A`s assets but does not wish to take on the contract with X. So Co. A remains a going concern. Staff are TUPE`d over and the work (to try to close out contract) is subcontracted to Co. B who exclude all liability to X (they would not be liable anyway - no privity). Thus Co. A is rendered a shell with the risk of being sued by X. If they did, co A has PI insurance to rely on. If that insurance policy falls over they would enter administration. This is a mitigation of risk strategy. Does anybody see any IA1986 issues or any other issues (Co. A has no creditors and as of now it is solvent and trading).
How to handle scope issues ?
Can anyone help me with Service Provider's Infrastructure Security Audit Report?
Hello, We are currently negotiating a contract for international freight forwarding services and would appreciate suggestions and feedback regarding liability for cargo loss/damage. Will freight forwarders agree to assume such liability and, if so, how much? And will they agree to provide cargo insurance? We understand there are international conventions and laws governing this matter which tend to limit the freight forwarder's liability, but we also understand that parties are free to contract differently if they so choose. What we don't know, are the industry norms. Any advice you may have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Having an interesting debate with a PMC here just now. Our contract is NEC3, the clause regarding the return of our performance guarantee states that we will receive it "Upon completion of the contract" which is a term not clearly defined in the document (elsewhere the terminology is NEC3 and refers to "completion of delivery of the goods and services"). My view is that as with FIDIC we should be receiving our guarantee back upon completion of the works (goods and services) whereas the PMC state that it should be held for the 2 year defects liability period. Question: Is this lack of clarity sufficient to show an ambiguity and therefore as per Qatar civil code this should be interpreted in my favour?
IACCM Networks are collaborative, community driven professional networking sites. Our contributors publish their own content as well as links to third-party articles and websites, and IACCM cannot be held responsible for content posted here. View Content Policy
Content Policy
IACCM cannot guarantee or warrant the accuracy, reliability, currency, completeness or legality of such content, third-party articles, or
linked websites, and disclaim all responsibility for the use of any inaccurate, incomplete or illegal content contained in or linked from IACCM
and disclaim any and all liability to the user for any damages, including without limitation, direct or indirect, special incidental, moral or
consequential damages, loss of profits, opportunities or information or for expenses arising in connection with your use of IACCM, its services,
forums or the site content, even if they (individually or as a group) have been advised of the possibility of such damages, losses or expenses;
do not warrant that IACCM operates error-free, nor that defects, errors or omissions will be corrected, or that IACCM is completely secure;
disclaim any and all warranties of any kind, including but not limited to implied, express or statutory warranties as to non-infringement of
intellectual property rights, or third party rights, title, latent defects, uninterrupted service, merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, and freedom from computer viruses; and
do not warrant or guarantee that files available for downloading through IACCM will be free of infections or viruses, worms, Trojan horses or
other code that contains contaminating or destructive properties.
IACCM, including any and all aspects of IACCM, is not a substitute for independent professional advice and users should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to their particular circumstances. Users must exercise their own skill and care with respect to their use of IACCM and must carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the material on the site for their purposes. The user should carefully assess any and all information obtained through IACCM before applying it to the user's situation. Never disregard, avoid or delay in obtaining professional advice about handling engineered or other nanomaterials or nanoparticles because of something you have read on this site. The advice the user finds in IACCM is freely offered in good faith, but no legal liability can be accepted by IACCM, members on IACCM's Implementation Committee, IACCM's operators, content partners, content contributors or providers, or IACCM's sponsors.
IACCM contains links to other Internet sites that are external to IACCM. IACCM takes reasonable care in linking Internet sites but has no direct control over the content of the linked sites, or the changes that may occur to the content on those sites. It is the responsibility of the users to make their own decisions about the accuracy, currency, reliability and correctness of information contained in linked external Internet sites. Links to external Internet sites, or links to documents, do not constitute an endorsement or a recommendation of any material on those sites, or in those documents, or of any third party products or services offered by, from or through those sites or those documents. Users of links provided by this Internet site are responsible for being aware of which organization hosting the Internet site they visit.
To report any innappropriate content, please
click here.
MENU