- From: Cummins, Fred A <fred.cummins@eds.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 12:23:47 -0500
- To: "Fletcher, Tony" <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>, "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, Andrew Berry <andyb@whyanbeel.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Tony, Regarding: > > <FAC> There will also be exchanges where there is no contract to start with > and the exchange will develop an agreement, i.e., contract. Exchanges > may also be governed by commercial standards or laws to which > parties of > an exchange subscribe or are subject to. > > The more difficult choreographies may be where there is no > contract and > parties want to establish a relationship in which the risk to each is > minimized, e.g., I don't ship anything until I'm sure I know who your > are and am assured that I will get paid. > > <AMF> I once thought like this too, but a lawyer in a different forum > (UN/CEFACT actually) convinced me otherwise, certainly for any > interaction that could be considered to be 'trade'. When > ever you trade > it seems you are always covered by law - International law if national > laws do not override, national law if a specific contract > does not come > into play. So you are either covered by an explicit contract or an > implicit one. > </AMF> <FAC>While there may be an implicit contract (law), it is not generally desirable to pursue the legal channels to enforce it. It's better to hold the shipment until you are sure of being paid (through a highly reliable and legally enforceable mechanism), rather than ship it and hope you will get paid without a lawsuit. So it's desirable to design the exchange accordingly. > Fred >
Received on Tuesday, 22 July 2003 13:24:05 UTC