- From: Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
- Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 14:01:42 -0600
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- CC: Bob Haugen <rhaugen@speakeasy.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Assaf Arkin wrote: > > Bob Haugen wrote: > >> Assaf Arkin wrote: >> >> >>>> * A choreography for how business partners will form legally binding >>>> contracts. >>>> >>> >> [...] >> >> >>>> * A choreography referenced in an economic contract applying >>>> >>> >> financial >> >> >>>> penalties for failure to fulfill commitments. >>>> >>> >>> ^^^^ >>> That's precisely the point. The choreography should be referenced by >>> >> >> the >> >> >>> economic contract and that would render it legally binding. There's no >>> need for the choreography to reference the economic contract, the >>> economic contract is all the evidence you need. >>> >> >> >> Another point: In these situations, >> the choreography itself has legal significance. >> Did we, or did we not, form a legally binding contract? >> Were the penalties applied fairly? >> A comparison of the choreography rules and execution log >> may be necessary to answer legal questions. >> Execution logs and choreography rules will become legal evidence. >> > Sorry, I may have ment what I said but I didn't say exactly what I > ment. What I ment to say is that the economic contract is all the > evidence you need that the choreography is legally binding. > > Of course you'll need to present the choreography itself and execution > log, also expect to present e-mails, snailmail and phone call logs > related to any escalation of the issue, whatever it takes to prove > that things did not execute accordingly and where they went wrong. mm1: And a reference back to the context of the economic agreement that binds the interactions.
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 15:52:34 UTC