Contract Negotiation
Contract Creation and Management Simulation
LAW/531
In the contract creation and management simulation involving Span Systems and Citizen-Schwarz AG (C-S) the conflict involved and possible resolutions could be beneficial or catastrophic for both companies. Legal risks for corporations in the process of implementation and development of a program are many. To prevent this there must be direct, quantifiable benchmarks that are acknowledged by all parties involved. Any contract ambiguity that occurs can result in differences in opinion on interpretation and the resulting need for negotiation, mediation, and possibly litigation. This would result in time, money, and effort for both parties which is not a desirable outcome. The simulation starts with a difference in opinion between companies on progress and defects in workmanship, which has pushed C-S to the point of threatening a cancelation of the contract if not rectified immediately. The contract is clear in many ways but both companies have drifted from the benchmarks and communication procedure established. Additions and alterations to the original program has resulted in an effort on Span Systems part in order to please C-S, but has cut corners to meet the deadlines. With the delays in production and the error rate occurring C-S is nervous that the project will not get completed on time. C-S and Span Systems have both failed to employ the “Communication and Reporting” clause and as a result there are differing opinions on the position the project is in. As the simulation progresses there are paths that create an adversarial relationship and ones that foster good will. Since this is a negotiation process at this time as a manager it is important to be realistic, offer middle ground, and understand where each other is willing to adapt to make the project successful. An example would be bringing in a C-S project manager to review and give input to the project in real-time. Span Systems could give
LAW/531
In the contract creation and management simulation involving Span Systems and Citizen-Schwarz AG (C-S) the conflict involved and possible resolutions could be beneficial or catastrophic for both companies. Legal risks for corporations in the process of implementation and development of a program are many. To prevent this there must be direct, quantifiable benchmarks that are acknowledged by all parties involved. Any contract ambiguity that occurs can result in differences in opinion on interpretation and the resulting need for negotiation, mediation, and possibly litigation. This would result in time, money, and effort for both parties which is not a desirable outcome. The simulation starts with a difference in opinion between companies on progress and defects in workmanship, which has pushed C-S to the point of threatening a cancelation of the contract if not rectified immediately. The contract is clear in many ways but both companies have drifted from the benchmarks and communication procedure established. Additions and alterations to the original program has resulted in an effort on Span Systems part in order to please C-S, but has cut corners to meet the deadlines. With the delays in production and the error rate occurring C-S is nervous that the project will not get completed on time. C-S and Span Systems have both failed to employ the “Communication and Reporting” clause and as a result there are differing opinions on the position the project is in. As the simulation progresses there are paths that create an adversarial relationship and ones that foster good will. Since this is a negotiation process at this time as a manager it is important to be realistic, offer middle ground, and understand where each other is willing to adapt to make the project successful. An example would be bringing in a C-S project manager to review and give input to the project in real-time. Span Systems could give
References: Bond, Robert. (2004). Software Contract Agreements Chapter 7: Preparing the contracts.(pp. 171-234). Thorogood Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Saunders, K. M., & Rymsza, L. (2010). As Snug as a Bug In Software: A ontracts Law Case Study. Southern Journal of Business & Ethics, 227-62. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Cheeseman, H.R. (2010). Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall [pic] CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I certify that the attached paper is my original work. I am familiar with, and acknowledge my responsibilities which are part of, the University of Phoenix Student Code of Academic Integrity. I affirm that any section of the paper which has been submitted previously is attributed and cited as such, and that this paper has not been submitted by anyone else. I have identified the sources of all information whether quoted verbatim or paraphrased, all images, and all quotations with citations and reference listings. Along with citations and reference listings, I have used quotation marks to identify quotations of fewer than 40 words and have used block indentation for quotations of 40 or more words. Nothing in this assignment violates copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property laws. I further agree that my name typed on the line below is intended to have, and shall have, the same validity as my handwritten signature. Student 's signature (name typed here is equivalent to a signature): LARRY DEAN TORRIS