TS 16949 - 8.3.4 - Customer Waiver - What is your interpretation?

[Wes Bucey]

I can't imagine a situation where an actual contract addendum would ever be necessary or even prudent for this type of thing. <SNIP>
A waiver or deviation--however those terms are defined--(a "concession") doesn't require changing the contract because if it's properly documented (almost always using the customer's methods and forms), the specifications are officially changed. A contract typically calls for performance to the specifications, most of which are specified by reference. It makes no sense that there would need to be a contract addendum when the contract terms haven't changed.

I guess, as you describe it, a signed-off waiver IS an addendum to the contract, especially if the supplier is prudent enough to establish the length of time the waiver is in force is equal to the end of the contract. Thanks for your additions, Jim. It's always nice to hear from someone who has an attitude that sticking strictly to the terms of a contract (even if it means leaving him out of the loop) is better than maintaining a strong sense of partnership and free communication with a customer.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Remember this, if you ask ME for the time, you get a dissertation on how to build a watch with details on astronomy and atomic clocks to boot.<snip>

I might be wrong, but I think Jan was just asking for a definition of fait accompli. If may be described as a foregone conclusion or inevitable consequence. If you do A, then B is a fait accompli if it's an inevitable result of A.

At this point I think we need to get back on topic.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I guess, as you describe it, a signed-off waiver IS an addendum to the contract, especially if the supplier is prudent enough to establish the length of time the waiver is in force is equal to the end of the contract. Thanks for your additions, Jim. It's always nice to hear from someone who has an attitude that sticking strictly to the terms of a contract (even if it means leaving him out of the loop) is better than maintaining a strong sense of partnership and free communication with a customer.

False dichotomy. Even if one is sticking to the contract terms, it's still possible to maintain "a strong sense of partnership." In fact, you can't do the latter without the former.

As I tried to explain earlier, a concession (to use the relevant term) isn't an addendum or change to the contract, it's a change of specifications. The contract requirements remain in force in their original terms. Contracts (including purchase orders) are written that way on purpose.

 

[Stijloor]

I might be wrong, but I think Jan was just asking for a definition of fait accompli. If may be described as a foregone conclusion or inevitable consequence. If you do A, then B is a fait accompli if it's an inevitable result of A.

At this point I think we need to get back on topic.

That is correct. All I asked for is a simple definition for the benefit of our Members. That is one of the things Moderators do...

 

[Stijloor]

For the confused about the term "fait accompli"

Definition:

An accomplished, presumably irreversible deed or fact.

That's all I asked for.

 

[BradM]

Folks, lets return to the original posters request.