Your Best Friend

 

By Lee Gesmer 

I’ve often advised vendor-clients that one of the best ways to protect themselves is to include an acceptance clause in their agreements. This can be accomplished either through an explicit acceptance clause or a short warranty period, which can function as a de facto acceptance clause. For some reason, many customers seem to forget about the acceptance clause, giving the vendor a strong defense to a claim of breach.

This is what happened in Samia v. MRI Software, decided by Massachusetts federal district court judge Nathaniel Gorton on October 9, 2014.

Samia purchased computer software, consulting and technical support from MRI. The License and Services Agreement provided for a 30 day warranty period, during which Samia could notify MRI of any non-conformities and trigger a “repair-and-replacement” clause. This was, in effect, a 30 day acceptance period – Samia had 30 days to vet the software and notify MRI of any defects. This was the sole and exclusive remedy, and all other remedies were disclaimed.

The contract contained a separate provision addressing defects related to custom work authorizations. Here, Samia had a 30 day acceptance period during which it could “test any project elements … and notify [MRI] of all potential deficiencies relative to the applicable specification for such work.”

To make a long story short, Samia claimed to have found non-conformities and deficiencies, but it failed to given written notice to MRI during the 30 day period following delivery. On this basis, the court allowed MRI’s motion for summary judgment on most of its claims, leaving alive only a claim of negligent misrepresentation based on oral promises allegedly made to Samia. However, little is left of Samia’s case at this point.

If you are a vendor, do your best to include an acceptance clause (or a short warranty period) in your agreements. If you are a customer, challenge this, but if you are forced to accept it, be sure to rigorously test any deliveries in a timely manner, to avoid the defense that defeated Samia in this case.

Samia Companies LLC v. MRI Software LLC (D. Mass. Oct. 9, 2014)

 

You can hear Lee discuss User Acceptance on CHAOS Tuesday #51.  

You can hear more of Lee’s talks by going to Lee’s guest page.



  |     |     |     |     |  
 

Subject Matter

Execution
 

About the Author:

Author

Lee Gesmer

Lee Gesmer is a founding partner of the Boston law firm Gesmer Updegrove LLP. The firm, which employees 50 lawyers and support staff, was formed in 1986. Since then it has become one of New England’s leading technology law firms, representing hundreds of institutions ranging from large organizations, such as Harvard University, The Linux Foundation and ThermoFisher Scientific, to hundreds of small and mid-sized emerging companies.

The Standish Group
Jim JohnsonJim
Johnson
Jim CrearJim
Crear
Lou ViannaLou
Vianna
Theo MulderTheo
Mulder
Jennifer  LynchJennifer
Lynch

The Standish Group News

The Standish Group Events

PM2GO.COM

CHAOS Tuesday Podcast

The Dezider