Ansvar för dröjsmål vid leverans av IT-projekt : En jämförelse mellan standardavtal på IT-rättens område och allmän kontraktsrätt

Sammanfattning: Information technology (IT) is a complex industry to say the least, which is reflected in the large number of failed IT projects. It has been shown that 60% of all IT projects are delayed to some extent. One cannot say with certainty what the reason for this is. Therefore, as a starting point, it may be necessary to look at the underlying relationship that regulates the parties’ obligations towards each other, namely the delivery agreement. IT projects are largely characterized by standard-form contracts which have either been produced unilaterally by one of the parties or jointly drawn up by both parties, a so-called agreed document. This thesis is focusing on two standard unilateral agreements, one that is considered more supplier-friendly and one that is considered more customer-friendly. The purpose is to investigate how these agreements, in the event of a delay, regulate primarily the supplier’s liability, including which sanctions that can be enforced and how these sanctions differ between the agreements. To investigate such liability, the thesis deals with the testing procedure and the acceptance testing phase as well as how to judge whether there is a delay or not. Furthermore, the importance of the requirements specification cannot be underestimated. Probably, in many cases, an unclear specification is the reason why so many IT projects are delayed. One reflection is that an area as complex as IT projects is perhaps less suitable for standards contracts terms as each project is more or less unique and which in turn places high demands on individual adaptation. The majority of this thesis will, however, consist of a comparison between the individual penalties against each other but also how they relate to general contract law. The agreements differ on several important points, not least in the penalty part, and despite the large differences, one conclusion is that the agreements could have been more developed to provide even stronger protection for the customer, especially with regard to the penalty provisions.