It creates a conflict of interest in which the other members of the joint venture could be affected negatively.

Hi,

I'm just trying to understand your position.
Considering that you are managing all contractual relationship with another company (buy and sell side) sounds actually good from your company perspective. It would mean, that your leadership can expect you to have a full overview about the contractually back and forth with this JF. Therefore I assume it's hard to change the mind of your leadership, since I would expect them to see your doublerole as positive.
However on the other side, there is your personal position, meaning being something in the middle of a sandwich, right? I'm not sure about your empowerment, but in worst case you have also very limited authority to change some company rules (discounts, penalties, payment conditions, acceptance criteria etc.). And on buy side you usually have different contractual expectation than on sell side. I assume, this is the tricky part in your situation. Fulfilling the internal requirements for buy- and sell side with the same contractual partner at the same time (and maybe also your partner asks you if you are a bit crazy, since requesting sooo different contracts when you are either on sell side or on buy side).

When the conditions your company expect in contracts are very different on sell side and buy side, this should be communicated as an issue (to your leadership). I think there are 2 options as solution: either the requested second CM as you suggest, or an escalation to the leadership to align clear buy and sell conditions between your company and the JF, which are equal to both parties. such framework conditions would make at least your position more clear. And maybe there won't be anymore need of a split of the CM roles buy side and sell side?

Since I couldn't find many information in your post, I hope, this is somehow helpful?
If your uncomfortable position has other reasons, please let me know.

BR

Kristin

I probably would start collecting facts: Firstly, establish the relationship between Your Company ("Y Company") and Company X ("X Company") by looking at any specific, written agreement about the services ("X and Y Services"). Also, establish clarity around (1) Y Company's services to be provided to X Company, and (2) X Company's services to be provided to Y Company. At this point, are there any conflicts that you can see/anticipate in your ability as the Contract Manager during the provision of X and Y Services, that perhaps could result in non-performance or non-compliance? Also, how do you escalate and cure any issues of non-performance (for example)? Secondly, I would review the files documenting any legal review, if any, prior to said agreement being reviewed for signature/execution. Were there any concerns that were raised and eventually resolved (internally)? AT the very least, you could start with the resource allocation -- that is, regarding your time management and how to better allocate your skills - in developing your case. Hope this helps. Regards ~ Rose

Its an interesting role and I recommend your decision to bring in another manager to take one of the contracts.

I would recommend to present this as two different roles:

On the buy side - Contract Manager would play role of a customer and to manage Company X, need to drive and establish Vendor Management Discipline around Contract Administration / Governance / Service Performance / Financial Management / Risk and Compliance

On the sell side - Contract Manager would play role of an engagement partner to drive business relationship / Value addition to Company X/ increase revenue generation from Company X to your company / Joint go-to-market strategy if possible.


Regards,
Dave

I do not think there are any legal roadblock to do so, if the parties agree to make the amendment that should be it.

With regard to technology, Docusign and others have fairly secure systems in place to ensure the integrity of e-signature contracts. Some organisations, however, still try to arrange in person signings where possible. In these circumstances, though, you will need to ensure that all signed contracts are stored safely and in a searchable repository as finding signed contracts remains a perennial problem for many who do not have comprehensive document repositories deployed.
With regard to your second question, many organisations have their legal functions handle the contract signature process. The larger the organisation, however, the more impractical such a set up can often be, as there are just not enough resources. Many organisations still have the sales function handling the signature process. There should be strict guidelines and processes in place to help ensure integrity and to prevent mistakes such as wrong versions being signed etc.

Hi Lisa, the organisation I work for has several long term contracts with the Australian Department of Defence. Some of these contracts include the use of scorecards, which are taken very seriously by both parties. These are followed to the letter and form part of our PBC's.

Hi - at my workplace we are mainly dealing with FX related claims that are being submitted as force majeure. In these cases, they are (b) - in that did the party have an opportunity prior to the FM event occurring to reasonably speaking, manage and treat the risk.

Hi
! disclaimer - I don't know anything about Australian law !

but I don't see how option a) can be reasonable.

Risks can appear as time goes by due to changing circumstances and something that is not reasonably foreseeable at one point in time could well be later on.

My apologies for the delayed reply to your question.

In general, the clause is referring to an issue that you could reasonably have anticipated and therefore could have prepared for it in some way. That means not only before inception of the contract, but also during its performance.

Even in a case where Force Majeure applies, there is a duty to take reasonable measures to mitigate its effects.

In the case of the pandemic, there are many debates over whether and in what circumstances it represents a Force Majeure event. However, even when disallowed, there may be grounds for claiming frustration of contract or impossibility of performance due to related events.

Interesting point, Michelle.

I´d strongly encourage you to raise this question also within the IACCM technology network, which is a micro-community, where you will be able to get insights to new trends in this specific field and where I am sure you´ll have the opportunity to share ideas regarding the topic you have brought:

www.iaccm.com/gp/technology

Also, please check our library: www.iaccm.com/resources/
where, you will find some articles about 'escrow agreements' for the software arena and other topics associated with risk management in the hardware world as well. By analogy you will explore ideas regarding hardware coming from best practices and escrow programs with the goal of risk mitigation

www.iaccm.com/resources/;

Best regards
Pablo

Hi Michelle - saw your post. For hardware: having a refresh plan with your supplier following a bit of a mutual benchmark, to see how best to provision for your upcoming capacity needs, might give some assurance. For services or subscriptions-based tech: having a documented 'cookbook' of key players and tech needed to recreate the service, including a list of any solutions 'not commercially available' or not easily re-purchased in Canada updated, might also be helpful to gage the difficulty of transitioning off your current tech,if needs be.

Those two governance-type processes, along with the typical supplier obligation to reasonably cooperate with any successor and to provide some mutually-agreed orderly termination assistance, might serve you well (outside escrow for software). Hope that offers some ideas...good luck. Cheers, Robin

Hello,

Hello

Just in case you still need a few other pointers, consider the following:

One thing sales people understand is numbers so approach it from an accounting point of view. Since the contract is void, consider discussing the fact they will not be able to meet all the GAAP principles for revenue recognition and if your accounts folk are diligent they probably will back you up ( but run this by them - accounts - first. Companies interpret or apply GAAP revenue recognition differently ).

Since Company X no longer exists and as such has no contracting capacity, it cant assign/novate the contract which will impact collectability should the New Company choose not to follow through with what it has implied it would do re: payment

If you are required to create a new agreement using the same or similar terms and conditions, consider preparing a risk assessment analysis of the contract and let the stakeholders approve the risk they are taking on by utilizing the same Ts & Cs so everyone is on the same page. Whatever discussions or approvals were obtained for the former Company should not apply to the New Company.

All the best!

Thank you for the guidance Mofoluwaso Falade.

Mathieu,

While standardization may be a noble ambition, achieving it is usually quite difficult. You can improve your odds through the use of mutual NDAs that protect the confidential information of both parties and by having fair and balanced agreements, but expecting all suppliers to sign them as-is may be expecting too much.

Your role is to understand their requested changes and to determine the impact to your company and whether the changes are acceptable, and to advise your internal client accordingly.

Hope that helps. Sincere regards.

Consider whether you might be able to use a "standard" and have each negotiated difference stand out as a specific change. There are a number of ways to do this. The most systematic would be to use a master and generate each of the documents from the master, with a patch for the differences. That's possible in a number of technologies. A broad example is shown here: www.commonaccord.org/index.php

Hi Vladimir,

We have standard NDA template and additional clauses in the clause library if the vendor pushes for Mutual NDA. This helps build the agility in NDA execution. My experience says that we are able to push 80% cases on standard NDA template and the balance needs engagement.

If a NDA is well drafted, clear, fair and equitable then it should be signed without issue.

If the client has specific requirements that are reasonable and equitable they should be acceptable to all parties.

If there is an element of inequity or unreasonableness then expect suppliers to push back. The simplest test is "would I sign this on behalf of my organisation": if not, then why expect the other party to sign?

What could be up for discussion: whether the NDA is one-way or mutual? what law and jurisdiction apply? the length/duration of the NDA and of any surviving obligations? whether personal NDAs/statements are required?

I would have concerns if I have received unacceptable terms in an NDA - it wouldn't bode well for any subsequent contract discussions negotiations.

In my organization we use a Mutual Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. I can see where there may be a need for specifics to be outlines, and in that event, I would consider an addendum as a sufficient protocol. The addendum can include the customer specifics that would otherwise present as "sticking points" that tie up getting the project off the ground.