Hello Lamija, I have encountered this situation numerous times (in an industry other than the one I am in currently). My approach to this, usually with success, was to define a clause wherein the distributor is given a very clear revenue/sales goal for a defined period of time (say, 6 months to one year) during which we would not grant exclusivity, nor would we actively seek another distributor. If the distributor met the clearly defined objectives, we would then negotiate an exclusive arrangement. Many factors contribute to this scenario, however, such as the relative size of the market, the number (or lack) of distributors in the sector, the risk associated with "betting" on a single player, cultural social/considerations, etc.
In short, exclusivity based on proven performance. I hope that proves helpful.
In the US, Texas or New York are largely considered "neutral territory" whereas in Europe, until very recently UK law was considered neutral. I think that may change with the recent political upheaval.
• Ministry of Defence
Or try international trade law?
• Legal and Commercial Training Limited
In the case of one party proposing Indian law and the other proposing Singapore law, the parties may well choose the law of England and Wales as both Indian law and Singapore law are based upon English and Welsh common law. (Note that there is no such concept as "UK law" as one commentator has suggested below).
However, a party should consider a wide range of factors before proposing a particular governing law and should weigh up the legal and commercial advantages and disadvantages of all the options.
One factor may be the degree of certainty that a contract will be interpreted in a particular way. English law adheres to the doctrine of binding precedence. Some legal systems do not. This could lead to significant uncertainty as to how the law will be applied.
In English law, it may be perceived that the courts allow a greater degree of freedom of contract. Subject to certain exceptions, freedom of contract in English law means that commercial parties are completely free to make disastrous bargains. This illustrates the comparative reluctance of the English courts to interfere on policy or other grounds to rewrite the parties' contracts for them.
For example, in English law it is possible, provided very clear wording is used, to include an exclusion clause that excludes any and all liability whatsoever, even for a deliberate breach of contract. And there is still no recognition of a duty of good faith being applied generally to commercial agreements (but watch this space!). This may or may not be an advantage to you but it remains the case that the courts are likely to give effect to the wording of the contract without imposing their opinions as to what does or does not amount to good faith.
And you may wish to consider the approach of a particular legal system to particular clauses.
For example, in English law, a liquidated damages clause will be subject to the clarification set out recently by the Supreme Court with a subsequent judgment, applying that test, indicating that a freely-negotiated LD clause is likely to be upheld subject to the requirements set out by the Supreme Court. Under UAE law, such a provision would be subject to Article 390(2) of the Civil Code and either party may apply to the court to adjust the agreed amount of compensation so it is equal to the loss. If Indian law were to apply, we would have to consider the effect of section 74 of the Indian Contracts Act 1872.
English law will also recognise an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.
And it may be that the choice of law clause will be reflected in the choice of jurisdiction. So, English law and the English courts. If the choice of courts is to reflect the choice of law, it may well be the consideration should be given to the efficacy of the court system and the technical expertise and other qualities of the judges.
In terms of the 8 different payment schemes I was specifically referring to what we call 'payment curves' (see attached graphic) as opposed to payment regimes such as cost+ (time and material), fixed price, cost + fixed fee, etc. In this light these are grouped into 5 main families with a couple of variations inside each. These are as follows:
- 'all or none' payment curves
- Linear payment curves
- Non-linear payment curves
- Alternative payment such as demerit point and visual payment curves
- Matrix payment curves
The intent of this discussion is to simply highlight that the choice of payment curve, similar to the choice of performance measure and level, can have a significant impact on the success (or otherwise) of the overall performance management framework. My blog (www.performancebasedcontracting.com) has 3 posts specifically on this topic including the graphics.
I hope this helps and answers your questions. However, please let me know if you have any further questions.
Hi Mark, Happy to discuss. Send me an email via email@example.com and I can talk about the principles I use.
In my view I don't believe, as a community, we have fully bottomed out all the risks associated with these types of engagement.
• Nokia Solutions and Networks Australia Limited
For a very good, concise review of the principles and issues of cloud agreements generally, covering most of your points above (my view anyway), you might also check out David W. Tollen's book "The Tech Contracts Handbook" online or via this website:
I agree with the idea, basically due to the possible huge claims that may cause extreme damage to the supplier.
sometimes the liability is capped to the total amount of the contract money value, which seems only fair to me as a professional against going with unlimited liability clause, however is there any case that this may be rejected by the client?
This is a good notion. I recall many years ago a friend of mine who had a well documented idea for a screenplay. The agent he showed stole it (allegedly) and a big entertainment company benefited (allegedly). My friend wanted to sue and he had a great case, but the other side simply put a giant pile of money on the table with a grinning lawyer sitting on the top of it and he had to back down. If he had the option to settle "a couple of hundred" I think he would have taken it.
• UK Department for Education - Education and Skills Funding Agency
the problem with limiting losses to the contract value is that in a professional services situation for example the advice given will relate to a much higher value. Eg. advice given costs £300,000 but the advice given is about the terms of a construction contract worth £10,000,000. If the works are faulty and have to be rebuilt, and the contract cannot be relied upon as a result of negligent advice, the loss to the client may well far exceed the £300,000 fee level. the client should be able to pursue the builder but here can't due to negligent advice from the lawyer. the client should be able to pursue the lawyer, but if they agreed a cap of £300k they will not get very far.
Hence you often see clients wanting a cap related to the value of the contract advised on rather than the fees paid for the advice. Insurance should be taken out but that may not cover all losses.
It creates a conflict of interest in which the other members of the joint venture could be affected negatively.
• Allianz Technology
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.
• Omaha Public Power District
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.