A Collection is a selection of features, articles, comments and opinions on any given theme or topic. It allows you to stay up‑to‑date with what interests you most.
Login here to access your saved articles and followed authors.
We have sent you an email so you can reset your password.
Sorry, we had a problem.
Tags related to this article
Published 25 octubre 2019
DACB’s technology lawyers support their clients from a wide range of sectors with complex tech sourcing deals. In this two part series, Aneeqa Kisil explores some of the major issues in IT contracts for buyers and suppliers recently encountered by the DACB team. This first article explores three key considerations for customers throughout the project lifecycle.
A technology customer ought to be able to rely on its chosen supplier’s expertise and professionalism. However, successful technology contracts usually require significant efforts on the customer side as well, commencing with the outlining of customer requirements prior to entering into an agreement and continuing on through the project with the provision of testing and feedback. Whilst customer involvement is even more important when an iterative agile development methodology is followed (and a traditional detailed specification cannot be drafted at the outset), the case of Anglo Group Plc v Winther Browne & Co Ltd  All ER (D) 294 sets out a cautionary tale for customers in the purchase of commercial off the shelf software. One paragraph of the late HHJ Toulmin CMG QC’s judgment makes clear that all contracts for standard software packages include an implied term requiring the customer to:
The judgment went against the customer as it had failed to co-operate actively with the supplier, including failing to provide any proof of its special needs or to accept reasonable workarounds proposed by the supplier.
Changes in scope/function are inescapable in technology projects, resulting from changes in customer requirements, improvements to supplier services or unforeseen delays on either side. The inclusion of a contractual change control procedure endeavours to ensure that such changes are agreed in a way that is contractually binding and clear.
Change control provisions need to be well considered to enable the parties to put these into operation easily and efficiently where required; overly complex, lengthy processes mean that the parties might side-step the provisions altogether, relying instead on informal and undocumented approaches to more quickly forge a way forward. From the customer perspective, failure to use the contractual change control procedure leads to a risk the change will not be recorded accurately and so not meet customer requirements, potentially leading to significant additional spend and delay.
Careful consideration needs to be given to the usability of the change control procedure including the setting of appropriate ‘thresholds’; as there are likely to be categories of dynamic change which can be pre-empted and minor change which can be dealt with quickly with a ‘fast-track’ approval process. Again, from the customer side, if the contract can be clear that certain minor requests are not chargeable this will minimise unexpected costs considerably.
At the outset of a contract, where a productive relationship between the parties may be envisaged for several years hence, it can be tempting to ignore the drafting of exit provisions or rely on vaguely drafted agreements to agree, with a supplier required to provide ‘reasonable assistance’ or similar. However, from a customer’s point of view, once a contract has ended it will usually no longer have the right to use the supplier’s software or materials without an express licence provision stating this. There is also no obligation for a supplier to provide transition services upon termination or expiry of an agreement unless these are drafted in.
Therefore, it is imperative that the customer gives serious thought to what it is likely to require following exit. As well as the need for licences to ‘background’ (pre-existing) intellectual property rights that are owned by the supplier, special consideration needs to be given to on-going supplier ‘foreground’ (created during the project) intellectual property rights licences; or extortionate fees or the threat of an infringement claim may result.
Even if the customer is happy to cease use of the supplier’s software, thought needs to be given to the extraction and provision of customer data from a supplier system to the customer in a useable format. Suppliers are usually willing to give this transition assistance support, but will expect to be paid: our recommendation is that costs are agreed at the outset of a contract in accordance with the supplier’s standard rate card.
If you have any queries on this article, or technology contracts more generally, please feel free to contact Aneeqa and the team.
+44 (0)113 251 4987
Tim Ryan, Joanne Waters
Jade Kowalski, Florence Cathcart
Kelsey Farish, Alistair Cooper
Harald Loeffler, Declan Finn, Justin Tivey
Angela Hayes, Tim Ryan
Jade Kowalski, Christopher Air, Omar Kamal
Alexander Dimitrov, Tim Ryan, Kate Loxton
Tim Ryan, Yara Alshighri
Tim Ryan, Alexander Dimitrov, Yara Alshighri
Christopher Air, Alexander Dimitrov
Michael Peeters, Ellen Huison
Kelsey Farish, Tim Ryan
Tim Ryan, Jonathan Brogden, Alexander Dimitrov, Pavan Trivedi
Jonathan Brogden, Mathew Rutter, Millie Bailey
Tim Ryan, Kelsey Farish, Alexander Dimitrov
Jonathan Brogden, Benjamin Jones, Millie Bailey