Accountable for administering

The termination clause in every agreement is legally viewed as the executor and final deed of accord. The purpose of which is to have parties involved become aware of their obligations in the settlement and all of the provisions or terms of reference stipulated in the contract should achieve its purposes. Otherwise, non-fulfillment of agreed termination clause breaches the obligation and usurps the right of either one of the contracting parties, in which civil or even criminal liability follows suit in the determination of legality.

One example of such is the case of the Sears, Roebuck and Company and the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). This case is among those which are highly celebrated in lawsuit proceedings, in which a $1. 6 billion-dollar deal was at stake upon CSC’s “pre-mature” termination of its contract with Sears. It may be an interesting point of discussions the “paralegal parlance” on the claim of pre-mature termination of contract, wherein the legal claimants could have formulated and adopted their deed of agreement [as legally referred to as a “side agreement”] to convey the termination clause.

This paper will discuss the legal claim to CSC on the alleged “pre-mature” termination of contract as opposed to the claim on the agreements by Sears, Roebuck and Company as the aggrieved contracting parties. The case background In the May 16th 2005 issue of the Computer World electronic magazine, it featured the news article on the legal claim of Sears Roebuck and Co. against the Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) that prematurely terminated a 10-year contract involving $1.6 billion-dollar investment on Information Technology (IT) outsourcing.

Allegedly, the CSC has failed to fulfill its obligations due “giving convenience” to one of its mergers. Sears further claimed the termination as it “dropped a hot potato” that negated the contract prior to the agreed terms of duration. As opposed by CSC, it refuted on the claim that “giving convenience” was part of the contract, in which Sears has provided the same capacity.

As ruled by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the stipulation on the termination clause referred to as “convenience of party or parties” is disputable but can be “vigorously” pursued to continue the agreement. In retrospect, Sears and CSC dispute is unwarranted to terminate their partnership in outsourcing business. To cite, the US-SEC has obliged CSC to maintain its services to Sears, in which majority of the 200 Sears’s workforce who were accountable for administering Sears’ IT facilities were anticipated to undertake jobs with CSC (Sliwa, C. & Machilis, S. , 2005).