RE: Revised: Mission Statement

Dear Fred,

I quite agree.  I was merely making the point that it has been
emphasised to me that there is in fact always at least an implicit
contract and framework of law in place for 'trade' interactions.
Certainly in designing business processes / interactions one should take
account of the implicit or explicit legal framework and follow best
practice.  Working back from this, in designing the language we should
have some awareness of the fact that this is the way the language will
be used, even though the tools we are providing are technical ones and
contribute to the fulfilment of the 'technical' aspects of the
contractual situation (subject of another mail I sent).  So I think we
are agreed.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3N 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 8707 390076   Fax: +44 (0) 8707 390077  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cummins, Fred A
Sent: 22 July 2003 18:24
To: Fletcher, Tony; Cummins, Fred A; Andrew Berry; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Revised: Mission Statement



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 Thursday, 24 July 2003 07:20:43 UTC