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.
Lots to consider.
Another couple of points to consider:
(1) How fast disputes can be resolved in that jurisdiction, whether through the courts or by arbitration.
(2) Intellectual property protections - ensure that any jurisdiction utilised provides sufficient protections.
In our organization, we have 'four eyes' principle which means that all external documents having financial or legal implications will be signed by two executives from different departments. Regarding our contracts, they are signed by Sales Manager / Sales Director and Commercial Manager / Commercial Director.
The co-signatory shares responsibility for the document.
We have of course Approval Matrix which specifies the authority to sign documents based on its value / significance. For eg. Managers allowed to sign contracts upto USD 10 Million etc.
The way you have formulated your question, it looks like an account plan a buying organization would prepare for a significant supplier. So you will find quite a bit of information in the IACCM library associated with SRM.
Clearly, you will have to adapt to your industry, to the services you are buying, and to the goals you wish to reach through your association with this supplier.
A good account plan will not only cover the scope of deliverables you are contracting for, but should also define
- the type of relationship you wish to have,
- what is the strategic end point of having a third party involved
- how you will govern the relationship and the day-to-day deliverables,
- what shall be the benefits for each party, how will they be earned, secured and measured,
- how you will jointly manage risk and who will bear what risks,
- and even how you will wind down the relationship when it must end.
It seems that as the buyer you are open to a collaborative relationship, and that is typically the best way for these relationships to be built. You will probably find that the sales side partner at your supplier is eager to work with you to develop this plan.
I wish you luck with your endeavor, and if you want to talk through some ideas, please give me a call or send a email - email@example.com
New International Technology Co.
Mediocrity may apply at two levels - individual or process. In my experience, mediocre negotiators can still achieve good results if there is an excellent process, but the opposite may not be true. What do you think?
• New International Technology Co.
it is an interesting point ; in other words, how an individual can 'survive' a mediocre organization and tot only specifically on negotiations...or viceversa ; I have experienced both the cases: most probably an excellent process prevails, it has to, also because it would be difficult for an excellent individual alone to substantially modify a mediocre process ; but, again, that's very interesting from the point of view of dynamics
Provincial Health Services Authority
In the US, interstate commerce is within federal jurisdiction. The US government does not have a standard or regulation applicable to interstate commerce of the type you reference. But, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Commerce do have authority over interstate commerce matters. In particular, deceptive trade practices fit within the Federal Trade Act. Also, most states (as far as I am aware) have a Deceptive Trade Practices act covering a variety of scenarios. At the federal level, privacy concerns are playing a key role. Also, be mindful that in financial transactions, there are some regulations concerning how consumers (account holders) are to be treated.But, the main point is that the US legal system has to take into account the state and federal concerns. As with most areas of law/regulation in the US, the US follows both a sectoral and geographic "matrix" approach. I hope that this helps.
Yes I agree, please share with me, I would like to see the legislation and I have recently observed the change in contractor's attitude in negotiation from UK.
• Ministry of Justice
The most recent change is the implementation of the European Directives into UK Law, through the issue of the 2015 Public Contracts Regulations. This dictates Government procurement rather than standard commercial arrangements. Section 83 indicates a minimum contract record retention of the contract duration where they are over a certain value: As most contracts have an extended liability life of at least 6 years and as we have a wider obligation to maintain public records, then policy in my government Department is to err on the side of caution and retain for 6-7 years. The legislation is found HERE www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/102/pdfs/uksi_20150102_en.pdf
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office
I'm not sure what the change of law mentioned could relate to - other than what Shaun is referencing.
I would look to follow i) your organisations own information management policy (if it exists - as they should have taken account of relevant law/regulations for your company); or ii) if there is no records policy - then as Shaun says, capturing information and storing information based on the potential risk of claims which would be capped based on the Limitations Act 1980.
The only thing I'd add to point below (for England and Wales jurisdiction) is anything executed as a deed has a limitation period of twelve years rather than six.
Yes, Sam, as indicated to you by separate email, there are multiple business cases and material available in our IACCM library, as well as in our "Contract and Commercial Management: The Operational Guide - E-Book" with valuable information to respond to your question. The Contracting body of knowledge and IACCM programs provide us with a solid understanding of the best practices to identify consistent tools, processes and methods. Also, there are previous postings in this forum related to Contract Management software tools which could be relevant in the search and analysis of not only sell-side but buy-side business as well.