Contract Dispute and Renegotiation Between Thesis

A lawsuit would create bad publicity for the bank during a period when it needs to create a positive image for itself in the media.

Retaining a strong relationship with an IT business partner is beneficial for CS, given the ever-changing nature of technology. The changing demands of the project is one reason the company has had such as stressful relationship with SS, and presumably the new system will require updates and reform in the future. Fostering a bad relationship with a well-known technology company is hardly in the interest of CS if it needs to update its system again.

Specific measures managers may take to minimize legal risk or realize legal opportunities.

Clarity in wording is essential in the future agreement for both parties. From the perspective of SS, limiting its liability is of paramount important, given that under the current contract, regardless of how tenuous an argument, CS might be able to state that SS is liable for any financial damage caused by an overdue project, or for any technical complications that ensue from the final project. CS has already chafed over the quality of the code received, for which SS blames organizational and project requirement changes that hampered its ability to perform on time and at its usual quality standard. No system is perfect, hence the need to limit liability. Instead of pointing fingers, the demands of the proposed system must be stated in clear wording, and the expected performance capacity of the system must be numerically defined.

Evaluate alternatives to resolve problems identified in the simulation.

According to SS, the delay and the failure to perform on the timetable specified in the contract was unavoidable, because of a change in CS management, changes to system requirements, changes in project scope and organizational changes. Because litigation is always costly, and extricating itself from an agreement with SS may prove costly for CS, even if it ultimately emerges victorious, dispute resolution seems like the most feasible and attractive strategy for both firms.A renegotiated contract that specifies the quality requirements, with an adjusted timetable of completion and fee schedule to accommodate the costs of the delay for CS must be proposed.

Explain which alternative approach you believe is best and why.

Renegotiating and redefining the elements of the SS and CS contract is essential. Regarding the "mutual consent" aspect of contract negotiations, all of the terms of the contract must be clearly stated. Firstly, the identities of who is specifying the requirements at CS and the personnel in charge of creating the system must be defined, so it is evident who has the authority and control over the management of the project. The nature of the system being constructed or the "mutual consideration" must likewise be defined. The demands of the Java-based transaction software developed for CS must be restated, given the shifts in project definition, and a new timetable acceptable to both parties must be set that is realistic and feasible. A gradated payment structure upon completion of certain system benchmarks might be one way to incentivize completion in a timely fashion, ensure consistent review of the quality of the project, and to lessen the chance an incomplete performance of the job on the part of SS. If performance on delivery is not satisfactory, the nature of who 'owns' the final system must be established. Both companies can benefit from this redefinition, given the financial complications that could ensure for SS if it loses control over its code without payment because of an incomplete or tardy performance, as well as for CS in terms of lost revenue, if it is unable to swiftly implement software system necessary for the daily functioning….....