Law/531 Contract Creation Management
Essay Preview: Law/531 Contract Creation Management
Report this essay
Contract Creation and Management
Contracts and agreements have been around ever since the beginning of creation in one shape or another. As soon as our first parents, Adam and Eve, rebelled against their Creator, God in His grace, even as He pronounced judgment, spoke also of grace and deliverance. Moses (2000 B.C.) stated To the Tempter, God said: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (p. 5) the contract was if, mankind rebelled against God that he would put the agony of pain during childbirth. After that contract was breached by our first parents our mother all over the nation has to go through the pain and enmity of giving birth to a child. Despite of whether contracts are verbal or written, the same abstract idea has been present. A contract is defined by Henry R. Cheeseman that it is “an agreement that is enforceable by a court of law or equity” (Cheeseman, 2010). In order to more thoroughly define a contract, the well referenced document of Restatement (Second) of Contracts defines a contract as “a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a solution or the presentation of which in some way recognizes a responsibility” (Cheeseman, 2010). Although a steady form of government was not always present since the beginning of creation, a set of laws and commandments has always been a part of human nature. In contemporary days, contractual disputes are determined by a court of law.
Posts conducting the simulation “Contract Creation and Management,” there are a few key elements that would direct attention. To gain an understanding functioning knowledge of contracts and agreements in reference to the simulation involving Span Systems and Citizen-Schwarz AG (CS).
Legal Risks and Opportunities
The simulation, Span Systems and CS were the two parties involved in a one year, six million dollar contract for the manufacture of the “largest and most prominent banking software” (University of Phoenix, 2002). Prior to the origination of the production of the banking software, Span Systems and CS arranged a contract establishing the conditions and contractual necessities which, plainly identified what was expected on the part of each business. Although a small number of highly debated bits and pieces surfaced during the bargain of the contract, both corporations were able to come to a shared understanding with the final contractual circumstances. The contract documented Span Systems as the production sector of the banking software and CS as the consumer.
At some stage in the production of the banking software, CS became progressively more dissatisfied with the development and quality of the banking software. CS requested that Span Systems right away surrender their remaining units of the banking software and also finish and assist their labors to transfer the production rights of the software to a different corporation.
The issues that arose during the business relationship between Span Systems and CS were the distinction of the software that was formed. CS was unpleased with the eminence and functionality of the software being created. At one point during the contractual disagreement, a representative from CS was relocated to Span Systems headquarters to manage the production process of the software in order ensure that the defects for each thousand were at an adequate level. Also CS was unsatisfied with the agenda in which the software was being produced.
One of the errors that the administration of Span Systems made prior to entering into the covenant with CS was not clearly identifying all of the foreseeable scenarios involved with the production of the banking software. If the management of Span Systems clearly describe the acceptable number of defects for each thousand and also the predictable schedule of deliverable software units, the failure to notice representative from CS would have been unnecessary. Given that this, and a number of other concerns, was not properly acknowledged during the creation of the contract, Span Systems was in contract infringement.
At the beginning of contracts, it is very important for organizations to accurately recognize of the potential situations and complications that may occur during the life of the agreement. Span Systems neglected to identify all of the likely situations that arose, for this reason the violation of contractual requirements.
Avoiding Risk, Minimizing Liabilities, and Benefiting from Opportunities
In the case involving Span Systems and CS, the hardships skilled could have been decreased or avoided with more meticulous and comprehensive review