• Get now! LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Link to LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Download LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper quick Start Guide Law 531 Week 3
  • As you know, eight months ago we entered into a contract with Citizen-Schwarz AG to create custom e-banking software. The agreed contract outlined the details of the arrangement, including on-schedule delivery and quality of the deliverables, strong communication between both parties, procedures for any changes in the system requirements, intellectual property rights, and dispute management procedures. Depending on our performance, we were projecting to gain an additional contract with C-S’s larger e-CRM order. Unfortunately, the original contract was filled with ambiguity from the start that increased the risk factor for both parties. Eight months into the project, our contact at C-S, Mr. Leon Thur, was not pleased with the product manufactured at Span Systems. Mr. Thur asserted that the products from Span Systems were delayed, the finished quality was not to their satisfaction and the product and showed “major bugs†​. Subsequently, Mr. Thur requested that Span Systems transfer all unfinished codes and rescind the contract between Span Systems and C-S. As project manager I was aware of the production and delivery problems; however they were at both ends. The rapid development in user and system studies had changed dramatically from the original contract making it difficult to accommodate the original due date. The contract allowed ordinary requirement changes however the requirement changes were not ordinary resulting in increased production cost and a decrease in quality. Some of the risks associated with Span Systems are • C-S’s views and questions regarding performance on deliverables • The scope of the project Span Systems has witnessed the miscommunication between our companies that impacted the schedule and the quality of the software being delivered, and the growing requirements and changes since the system study was performed. As a result, the original contract clauses were reviewed, and three were chosen to favor Span in the negotiation to keep the contract with C-S. Breach of Contract Under ‘Internal Escalation Procedure for Disputes’: Prior to filing any formal proceedings with respect to dispute, the party believing itself aggrieved (the “Invoking Party†​) shall call for progressive management involvement by writing or third party. This is a favorable negotiating point for Span in that C-S has unilaterally called for the binding contract to be rescinded. Breach of Contract Under ‘Communicating and Reporting’: Through the duration of the project there will be regularly scheduled, bi-weekly meetings, between C-S and Span Systems project managers to review the deliverables. This breach was a beneficial negotiation point to Span in that the change in project management at C-S has been the key reason for the delay of deliverables. Meetings to review deliverables has not happened and thus led to slips in schedule requirements and expectations Breach of Contract Under ‘Requirements Change’: C-S will notify Span Systems of any ordinary changes and system requirements originally agreed to. This was also a key negotiating clause in that requirements have grown unexpectedly and unordinary making it difficult to keep up with schedule because C-S was not correctly reporting the changes as drafted in the contract. This clause depended on our metrics. Our Metrics were reviewed prior to negotiation and showed we were planned to have an allowance of scheduled slip days ±5 days and we were +2 days per deliverable; our metric for defects was planned as Nil, we actually had currently 5 defects per deliverable which was a advantage point for C-S’s argument; and size I (in function points) was planned to be 940 and we actually performed with points 1015. Our Corporate Transactional Attorney, Harold Smith was agreeable with these negotiating points, and we began proceedings with C-S in December. Just before negotiations we received word that C-S might be attempting to negotiate a second contract with Indian. Please sign up to read full document. Law 531 Week 3 To: Span Systems Management From: VP Contracts Date: April 12, 2010 Subject: Recognizing Contract Risk and Opportunities Management Team: This Memo is written to Span Systems management as a result of the contract and contract negotiations with Citizen- Schwartz AG. Citizen Schwartz’s management believes that there has been a slip in the contracted schedule and resulted in poor quality of the deliverable product. Leon Thor Citizen-Schwartz’s negotiator has threatened to rescind Span Systems contract. Both parties have been in discussion, and did not want to rescind the contract or proceed with court actions. To prevent this from occurring, Span Systems and Citizen-Schwartz AG have begun negotiations on the contract clauses and have settled on some terms of agreement. During the negotiations process Span Systems team identified the following risks: Breach of Contract under substantial performance, Breach of Contract under Internal Escalation, and Breach of Contract under Requirements Change. I will summarize the risks Span System learned from this situation and what we can do to address this and minimize liabilities. Related Essays Settlement or Litigation October 13, 2011 Kathy Geremia
  • Settlement or Litigation There are many decisions a person needs to make when involved in a court case. Two factors are whether to settle the case or pursue litigation. In this paper, we will discuss when a person should settle or pursue litigation and at what point is there a need to have counsel available. Deciding Factors whether to take a settlement or litigation is a decision a client would want to talk over with the attorney. The client tangible cost of the crime, such as “medical expenses, mental health counseling and loss of productivity is estimated at $105 billion annually†​ (United States Department of Justice, 2006). In looking at the intangible costs for the “pain and suffering and reduced quality of life is $345 billion annually†​ (United States Department of Justice, 2006). |Settlement versus Litigation | |Criteria Applied in Decision-Making |Achieve a fair outcome that parties can |Strictly apply established law to the facts | | |voluntarily accept. |found in each case. | |Who is in Control, Set the Rules and |The parties, their counsel and the Mediator |Congress, State Legislature, Supreme Court, | |Procedures? |whom they chose to assist them control the |Local Courts, Judge assigned to the case | | |process and rules. | | |Time, Convenience |Preparation and meeting times are set at the |Timelines are imposed by a Case Scheduling | | |convenience of the parties and. Get now! LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Law 531 Week 3 Law 531 Week 3 Related Essays
Please download to view
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
...

LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper

by kari

on

Report

Category:

Documents

Download: 0

Comment: 0

212

views

Comments

Description

LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper
Download LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper

Transcript

  • Get now! LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Link to LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Download LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper quick Start Guide Law 531 Week 3
  • As you know, eight months ago we entered into a contract with Citizen-Schwarz AG to create custom e-banking software. The agreed contract outlined the details of the arrangement, including on-schedule delivery and quality of the deliverables, strong communication between both parties, procedures for any changes in the system requirements, intellectual property rights, and dispute management procedures. Depending on our performance, we were projecting to gain an additional contract with C-S’s larger e-CRM order. Unfortunately, the original contract was filled with ambiguity from the start that increased the risk factor for both parties. Eight months into the project, our contact at C-S, Mr. Leon Thur, was not pleased with the product manufactured at Span Systems. Mr. Thur asserted that the products from Span Systems were delayed, the finished quality was not to their satisfaction and the product and showed “major bugs†​. Subsequently, Mr. Thur requested that Span Systems transfer all unfinished codes and rescind the contract between Span Systems and C-S. As project manager I was aware of the production and delivery problems; however they were at both ends. The rapid development in user and system studies had changed dramatically from the original contract making it difficult to accommodate the original due date. The contract allowed ordinary requirement changes however the requirement changes were not ordinary resulting in increased production cost and a decrease in quality. Some of the risks associated with Span Systems are • C-S’s views and questions regarding performance on deliverables • The scope of the project Span Systems has witnessed the miscommunication between our companies that impacted the schedule and the quality of the software being delivered, and the growing requirements and changes since the system study was performed. As a result, the original contract clauses were reviewed, and three were chosen to favor Span in the negotiation to keep the contract with C-S. Breach of Contract Under ‘Internal Escalation Procedure for Disputes’: Prior to filing any formal proceedings with respect to dispute, the party believing itself aggrieved (the “Invoking Party†​) shall call for progressive management involvement by writing or third party. This is a favorable negotiating point for Span in that C-S has unilaterally called for the binding contract to be rescinded. Breach of Contract Under ‘Communicating and Reporting’: Through the duration of the project there will be regularly scheduled, bi-weekly meetings, between C-S and Span Systems project managers to review the deliverables. This breach was a beneficial negotiation point to Span in that the change in project management at C-S has been the key reason for the delay of deliverables. Meetings to review deliverables has not happened and thus led to slips in schedule requirements and expectations Breach of Contract Under ‘Requirements Change’: C-S will notify Span Systems of any ordinary changes and system requirements originally agreed to. This was also a key negotiating clause in that requirements have grown unexpectedly and unordinary making it difficult to keep up with schedule because C-S was not correctly reporting the changes as drafted in the contract. This clause depended on our metrics. Our Metrics were reviewed prior to negotiation and showed we were planned to have an allowance of scheduled slip days ±5 days and we were +2 days per deliverable; our metric for defects was planned as Nil, we actually had currently 5 defects per deliverable which was a advantage point for C-S’s argument; and size I (in function points) was planned to be 940 and we actually performed with points 1015. Our Corporate Transactional Attorney, Harold Smith was agreeable with these negotiating points, and we began proceedings with C-S in December. Just before negotiations we received word that C-S might be attempting to negotiate a second contract with Indian. Please sign up to read full document. Law 531 Week 3 To: Span Systems Management From: VP Contracts Date: April 12, 2010 Subject: Recognizing Contract Risk and Opportunities Management Team: This Memo is written to Span Systems management as a result of the contract and contract negotiations with Citizen- Schwartz AG. Citizen Schwartz’s management believes that there has been a slip in the contracted schedule and resulted in poor quality of the deliverable product. Leon Thor Citizen-Schwartz’s negotiator has threatened to rescind Span Systems contract. Both parties have been in discussion, and did not want to rescind the contract or proceed with court actions. To prevent this from occurring, Span Systems and Citizen-Schwartz AG have begun negotiations on the contract clauses and have settled on some terms of agreement. During the negotiations process Span Systems team identified the following risks: Breach of Contract under substantial performance, Breach of Contract under Internal Escalation, and Breach of Contract under Requirements Change. I will summarize the risks Span System learned from this situation and what we can do to address this and minimize liabilities. Related Essays Settlement or Litigation October 13, 2011 Kathy Geremia
  • Settlement or Litigation There are many decisions a person needs to make when involved in a court case. Two factors are whether to settle the case or pursue litigation. In this paper, we will discuss when a person should settle or pursue litigation and at what point is there a need to have counsel available. Deciding Factors whether to take a settlement or litigation is a decision a client would want to talk over with the attorney. The client tangible cost of the crime, such as “medical expenses, mental health counseling and loss of productivity is estimated at $105 billion annually†​ (United States Department of Justice, 2006). In looking at the intangible costs for the “pain and suffering and reduced quality of life is $345 billion annually†​ (United States Department of Justice, 2006). |Settlement versus Litigation | |Criteria Applied in Decision-Making |Achieve a fair outcome that parties can |Strictly apply established law to the facts | | |voluntarily accept. |found in each case. | |Who is in Control, Set the Rules and |The parties, their counsel and the Mediator |Congress, State Legislature, Supreme Court, | |Procedures? |whom they chose to assist them control the |Local Courts, Judge assigned to the case | | |process and rules. | | |Time, Convenience |Preparation and meeting times are set at the |Timelines are imposed by a Case Scheduling | | |convenience of the parties and. Get now! LAW 531 Week 3 ERM Paper Law 531 Week 3 Law 531 Week 3 Related Essays
Fly UP