In addition to particular responses from other members who may have noticed such a potential decline in remuneration, if any, I would encourage the poster of this forum entry to regularly check IACCM annual salary review. Please refer to our IACCM library, by clicking on www.iaccm.com/resources/contract-management-resources/
Please contact the Netherlands office of Leaders Trust - member firm of AltoPartners. www.leaderstrust.nl Ask for Albert Froom. T: +31 (0) 30 6930900
AltoPartners is the global provider of executive search services to corporate members of the IACCM.
Yes, we have relevant data and will send this to you. It will help if you can offer brief context in terms of role (buy side / sell side; national versus international / global responsibilities; types of agreement typically handled; scope of activity - preaward/post-award/ both). Please send any background direct to me - firstname.lastname@example.org
Under Common Law principles, liability for personal injury or death cannot be excluded. So it most likely makes no difference whether or not the provision is struck because the customer could not deny their legal liability in the event of negligence leading to this form of loss.
What if there is an industry practise/custom to allow a party to exclude its liability even for its own negligence and it is being upheld by the court of law. What happens then?
I think that the second question goes to the difference between an indemnity and ordinary liability. Under general Common Law principles, the lack of an indemnity for a particular thing does not necessarily mean that a party won't be liable for that thing. The specific issue here is a legal question. It's probably worth a call to counsel so that you can be certain you will be covered in this circumstance. I see this as a different question than "excluding" liability for one's own negligence. Such clauses typically require clearing a higher legal hurdle.
All this said, I really do not understand why the customer would be so unwilling to indemnify for harm they caused. It's generally considered a reasonable commitment.
Thanks, Phyllis, I am glad that you found the webinar helpful; it was certainly a great session to moderate, with some really good questions at the end. I agree - we often don't pay enough attention to the learning style and the impact that has on how information is absorbed. Paul Branch
Me too. I would be interested to hear what others have found in selection of a CLM.
I am not a buyer of CLM solution but a seller. I work for EY and have developed a easy plug-in and use SharePoint based CLM solution. Would be happy to participate in the RFP/RFI process. My email ID is: Kulbir.email@example.com.
As for my tool the below features are available at extremely reasonable pricing and very easy to use format.
Integration with Clients' system
Repository of Contracts
Templates uploading and downloading
OCR File Scanning
Dashboards and Reports
Alert and Notifications
Multiple Filtering options
Selecting form Templates
Download Reports/Export meta data to excel
Upload templates to a selected workspace
Create new user accounts
Reset user accounts
Edit access to users
create new workspace
upload templates to a master database
Easily Customizable App UI
Contract Clause Library
Intake form that can integrate with single sign on (SSO)
Compliance with other regulations
• Fire and Emergency NZ
Hi Geoff. We found a lot of the systems on the market, whilst all really good, focussed on workflow. Emails and notifications of moments and issues galore. I've always found that you don't need that if you have the right team, this isn't needed. They know what thy have to do, what stage in the process and when. So that for me was a major issue.
The second thing is a lot of them have lots of functionality around the back and forth and negotiation of clauses. I'd suggest again if you have really good templates and good early engagement, you reduce the back and forth required and can get the benefits of quicker turnaround and e-signatures without a bigger system.
I would flag that you should not underestimate the work required to get your current information into the new system. It's probably going to be more than the annual fees to set up. In the RFP / RFI - get them to tell you their plans and costs for getting the records in the system. It's not just the scanning of records, but also the information in the contracts (milestones, conditions) that need to come in.
Finally, I'd really recommend that you bring in as many people as possible into this process, especially in the procurement team. The users and the team are the ones that will have to use this solution going forward and keep your records in that format for all of those wonderful visuals and reports that the new system spits out. I've seen and heard of many instances where the new CLM has failed because the team and users haven't brought into the solution.
We've been lucky with our solution (it's a simple one that we developed in house) because :
(a) it wasn't an all at once deployment. People have had time to think about the system and what it could do
(b) the team have then been able to take the system to an even higher level than anything I had in mind. Templates for contracts, evaluation and issues registers - all really awesome stuff that went way beyond my initial ideas.
I hope this aids your thinking, and if you want to talk further, please message me.
• BDO USA LLP
I saw your post this morning and wanted to reach out about your question. I lead the consulting practice at BDO USA LLP that focuses on precisely the scenario you are asking about. We are solution/platform agnostic and seek to ensure the "right" solution - regardless of vendor - is selected so that something that is too big or too complex isn't inadvertently chosen from the many, many good solutions out there. Feel free to give me a call at 703-770-4453 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. I'd be happy to share my thoughts with you. Thanks! Tom
• Nimblex by EBMS
Our experience is to stay away from the big overnight system implementation but to partner with a super flexible technology so that you can start small and then incrementally digitise the processes the way you want and your staff would like to work. This is a more incremental way and allow for the necessary change management to run parallel.
Flexibility is the key i.e. shape the software around your processes, framework, desired way of working and policies. Do not try to shape your work procedures to fit a certain software. A good example is getnimblex.com/case-studies/yvw-procurement-and-contract-management/
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.