This chapter is not intended to complement the important literary work in this field. This is not so much a guide to technical arguments as to why we believe that the form of change from CIC is the best option, but rather a guide to the potential pitfalls of ab initio shapes and ways, how you can reduce your risk if you are forced to move to the last lane. This category of claims is the case when a typical novation agreement, which contains a contracting guarantee for pre-innovation design work, makes the contractor`s task much easier. Such agreements allow contractors to argue that the advisor owes him a duty of care for the work done prior to the innovation and that, therefore, the advisor is required to advise the contractor on everything the consultant knows, which could affect the contractor`s price. This type of innovation aims to create the legal fiction that the consultant had worked for him from the beginning, as if the employer had never existed. On the other hand, the CIC agreement makes it much more difficult for the contractor to make this argument. The CIC agreement clearly states that the contractor can only recover the damage suffered by the contractors on the pre-renovation benefits if the advisor has been required, vis-à-vis the original employer, to take the necessary skills and diligence to avoid that loss. We would say that the solution to many problems is to use the CIC innovation agreement, but where it cannot be agreed, the answers are more difficult to find. Much will depend on the particular circumstances of each project, but one of the first points to consider is how the innovation agreement stands next to the underlying appointment agreement. Are the obligations of the underlying appointment useful as soon as the innovation agreement comes into force, or does the innovation agreement result in anomalies similar to those of the example above? If this is the case, the problem areas should be reported to the innovation development lawyer.
The three parties – the ceding, the purchaser and the counterparty (i.e. the other party) – must sign the innovation contract. You`ll also find another approach in our standard innovation contract document. The advantage of novation is that the consultant has a constant responsibility for his services before and after the innovation under the same (or very similar) conditions – that is, they are responsible to the contractor for the entire design, and not just for the completion of the design. This will avoid the sharing of design responsibility between the client and the contractor. In these complex agreements with several agreements and likely warranty requirements, it is important that the consultant avoids accepting different levels of liability from one contract to another.