Video: the IBM-Fujitsu dispute — how do an exclusion clause and a workshare arrangement co-exist?
Fujitsu Services v IBM emphasises the need for commercial contracts to be carefully drafted. IBM had entered into a partnering agreement with the DVLA to provide IT services, including a subcontract with Fujitsu.
Fujitsu alleged it had been deprived of work under the subcontract and that as a result it had incurred losses of some £36m. Fujitsu alleged that IBM also owed it fiduciary duties and/or an obligation of good faith.
IBM, in turn, denied that it owed any such duties and argued that any losses were excluded by the terms of the contract…
Click on the link below to watch the IBB Solicitors video or download the transcript.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from IBB Solicitors
Briefings from IBB Solicitors
Statistics from the NHS Litigation Authority have revealed that the number of people making clinical negligence claims against the NHS has reached unprecedented levels.
Supreme Court rules even royalty must sign own disclosure statement and weighs in on question of relief from sanctions
The Supreme Court has for the first time addressed the question of post-Mitchell relief from sanctions in the recent case of HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd and anor.