Tech/Law: 6 Reasons That Tech Projects Go Wrong (And How Your Lawyer Can Help!)

Current site :    AU   |   EN
China Hong Kong SAR
United Kingdom
United States

Edition 2 – Not clearly defining what you are buying

In our experience, issues in tech projects often arise simply because the parties have not clearly defined what the supplier is committing to provide to the customer, not to mention how and by when. It may sound like an obvious point, but if the customer has not clearly defined the fundamentals of what they are buying, this can lead to uncertainties rippling through the rest of their arrangements. Disputes about price, scope and performance often follow.

It is not unusual for us to progress through extensive negotiations of the front-end terms of a tech project agreement, resolving legal aspects around termination and liability, only to find that the description of the project solution itself has not been completed to a sufficient level of detail. There can then be pressure to push ahead and execute the agreement regardless, based on a commitment to build out further detail about the solution in due course. While this may seem like a good idea while the parties remain in a positive and collaborative mindset, in our experience it can also invite disaster should the project not proceed exactly in the manner hoped.

Tech/Law: Edition 2
Not clearly defining what you are buying


1.3MB, 5 Pages

On 2 August 2022, the Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill 2022 was passed (Aged Care Bill), introducing important regulatory changes to Australia’s aged care sector. The Bill makes numerous legislative amendments, including to the Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) (Aged Care Act) and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 (Cth) (Transitional Provisions Act), and responds to various recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (Royal Commission) Final Report (Report). The Report identified the provision of substandard aged care services and perceived systemic failures in the aged care sector.[1]

08 August 2022

The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022