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.
We have also launched a survey today which has already generated hundreds of responses and we will be putting out a report on the results early next week so please watch out for that.
I hope this helps and please do let us know if you have further specific questions.
• Cadent Gas Ltd
There are multiple ways to be honest, including Force Majeure clauses and Business Continuity obligations on the supplier which are regularly tested.
• Vaisala Inc.
We have recently added a statement to all quotes to customers with regard to COVID19, namely that it is now a 'known' event and given that the environment is ever-changing that status of your order may change, including for example the time from submission of order to delivery/performance. We will use all commercially reasonable efforts to notify you as soon as possible of any change. So perhaps something along those lines? Our sales and executive teams seem pleased that we are addressing it directly.
Hi Erik - personally I don't think that you are the last one to figure it out, and if I might observe, I believe that there are many others around the world trying to work out what it means for them.
There's two things I'd contribute to your thinking, which are caveated in the usual way (i.e. my views and not necessarily those of my employer) :
1. I think that there is a financial cost to the organisation in seeking to embed these. It's a discussion that I've found has meant that it's hard to get real traction - as whilst the requests for these initiatives come in, there has not been the additional funding provided to many Government organisations to get his going. Sure, it's argued that there are other benefits - often more widely outside of the organisation - but many organisations aren't winning the battle with their finance teams that could see this progress.
2. I have been impressed with the approach of the IRD team in New Zealand. From the presentations that I've seen from Karen Whitehouse and the team, they picked one of the UN goals that was most relevant to them, and looked to focus on that. I think this will be more effective than those who try to achieve too much by looking to incorporate too many of these goals into their procurement activities.
We've looked to take that thinking on board into our operations. Given our contracts are split into portfolios, the challenge for my team in 2020 is to get the business agreeing to an area of focus and measurements for each of these portfolios. These might be the same, or they might be different, but we're using that approach to get the business owners, as well as the leadership team to buy into it, so it's not us going it alone.
Like you, I would love to hear how others are approaching it - it's brave of you to start a topic by making yourself vulnerable, but I think that you're in good company.
• NXB AB
Hi Darren, thanks for your contribution. I will add, in terms of motivation, that the Swedish government yesterday announced their long-term strategy towards a sustainable society in general and climate activities in particular. As always, there were many (130) activities, more or less concrete, but a very firm statement by the minister was that they will demand from all public procurement to embed the Agenda and thereby drive the change process.
Obviously, there are a zillion question marks on how to do it (sounds a bit like "how to eat an elephant") and I believe that selecting the goal(-s) that are most relevant would be a decent strategy with a good chance to succeed. I looked at the IRD homepage but could not see a whole lot. Is there a write-up of some kind that I could get access to.
Btw, I am glad to see NZ being active, Tim mentioned it to me and I really believe that us smaller countries are quicker to decide and get going rather than just talking. Denmark is also, as I understand it, acting in the same direction and I honestly believe that we together could put together an IACCM statement of some kind, given that we find more material.
• Ngamuru Advisory
You've hit on a really good topic. As I sit here in Australia in the areas affected by fire and storms the need for broader outcome as part of public spending is not lost on me. So much so I recently wrote an article on my blog (www.performancebasedcontracting.com) on this topic. I also mentioned that this is being used, or trying to be used. I'd be happy to provide more details directly if you need. Key thing is that it is possible, just not typical. And I hope we can all change that!
Dr Andrew Jacopino, IACCM Fellow
• NXB AB
Hi Andrew and thanks for your encouraging article. We seem to have things bubbling here and there in the world and I understand that Tim Cummins is taking a lead from an IACCM perspective, that you are involved and that I will try to contribute to the best of my capability.
Meanwhile, I continue to make myself present in the public domain, an interesting effort after 44 years in the private sector. There is no doubt in my mind that the "public muscle" is a major enabler to introduce a more targeted, ambitious and future-focused trading practice.
In addition, I hear more and more that having a common purpose and an encouraging, visible leadership is more engaging and motivating to coming generations entering the labour market than career paths, personal benefits and generic power and status symbols. Without a clear purpose and professional leadership "the good ones" are gone. Yesterday, the CEO of Scania, producer of heavy trucks, buses and other machinery, said exactly this in a TV interview. My contacts with leaders in the public sector say the same.
Tomorrow, I will meet with a few like-minded people in Copenhagen and look forward to continues communicating with you and others in IACCM on the subject. A "viral approach" will be very important, I believe!! There are big and well funded opponents to a change in the current activities.
Dear Carrie, I have experience from pricing changes both during the negotiation process and during the contract lifecycle. Our clients have especially found this as an effective tool during negotiations to demonstrate risk/work-impact if the other party is requesting terms transferring an extensive part of the risk/work to them. By showing the cost-impact, the incentive for price increase becomes rather obvious which strengthens your negotiation position. Kind regards, Madeleine Willyams - Advokatfirmaet Negota AS, Norway.
• Seplat Petroleum Development Company Plc
1) This is novel to me. Reading your post, your organisation is on the supply side. If I am right, I work for an organisation on the buying side and will want to know how this can be of benefit for one on the buying side.
2) Is it possible to see a sample of just one of such clauses, to see how it was drafted?
Personally, I would say the 10 are still applicable today (Jan 2020). I also think the point about how fast the world is moving - particularly technology wise - is true and it has only sped up even more in the past 5 years.
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.