Lawweekthree
- Submitted by: chino1
- Views: 517
- Category: Politics: Economics
- Date Submitted: 08/17/2010 08:12 AM
- Pages: 6
- Report this Essay
M E M O R A N D U M
To: Managers- Span Systems
From: Harold Smith, Span’s Transactional Attorney
Re: C-S Contract Issues
Confidential
C-S initial demanding of immediate transfer of all unfurnished code & assert rescission of contract was driven largely by Leon Ther, toughest negotiators at C-S. In a letter to Grant, Ther has asserted that C-S just can’t afford schedule slips because of its deadline for the release of the transaction software in the market. As we know, the one-year contract between Span and C-S is worth $6 million. C-S’s bigger e-CRM order is in the pipeline, and chances of Span getting the order hinge on the performance of this contract. The CEO has advised that we settle this dispute amicably. We must talk to C-S before it can seek any C-legal action. However, before we begin any negotiation with C-S, need to look at the clauses in the contract that favor us and prepare our negotiation points.
A. Breach of contract - not meeting deadline (substantial compliance? What about the quality of the work? Will C-S succeed? ) C-S had a valid argument regarding quality and delay in delivery of code. Acceptable quality and timely delivery, in this case, were concurrent conditions to Span’s claim of substantial performance. In Grant's letter, C-S just can’t afford schedule slips because of its deadline for the release of the transaction software in the market. Span’s deliverable in the last couple of months have been behind schedule. On top of that, the quality of the deliverable has been unacceptable, with major bugs being detected in the user testing stage. There are differences of metric that schedule slip from 5 days to currently +2 days per deliverable, defect should be Nil to currently, 5 defects per deliverable, and size(industry standard in sizing software project) is planned 940 but currently, 1,015. Quality measurements of deliverable will play a key role in determining whether Span’s claim is valid. If the deliverables have been...
To: Managers- Span Systems
From: Harold Smith, Span’s Transactional Attorney
Re: C-S Contract Issues
Confidential
C-S initial demanding of immediate transfer of all unfurnished code & assert rescission of contract was driven largely by Leon Ther, toughest negotiators at C-S. In a letter to Grant, Ther has asserted that C-S just can’t afford schedule slips because of its deadline for the release of the transaction software in the market. As we know, the one-year contract between Span and C-S is worth $6 million. C-S’s bigger e-CRM order is in the pipeline, and chances of Span getting the order hinge on the performance of this contract. The CEO has advised that we settle this dispute amicably. We must talk to C-S before it can seek any C-legal action. However, before we begin any negotiation with C-S, need to look at the clauses in the contract that favor us and prepare our negotiation points.
A. Breach of contract - not meeting deadline (substantial compliance? What about the quality of the work? Will C-S succeed? ) C-S had a valid argument regarding quality and delay in delivery of code. Acceptable quality and timely delivery, in this case, were concurrent conditions to Span’s claim of substantial performance. In Grant's letter, C-S just can’t afford schedule slips because of its deadline for the release of the transaction software in the market. Span’s deliverable in the last couple of months have been behind schedule. On top of that, the quality of the deliverable has been unacceptable, with major bugs being detected in the user testing stage. There are differences of metric that schedule slip from 5 days to currently +2 days per deliverable, defect should be Nil to currently, 5 defects per deliverable, and size(industry standard in sizing software project) is planned 940 but currently, 1,015. Quality measurements of deliverable will play a key role in determining whether Span’s claim is valid. If the deliverables have been...