Australia: Beware Of Overpromising IT Pitch: Lessons From BskyB v EDS
Last Updated: 5 September 2010

In this Boardroom Radio, Middletons partner Kate Marshall examines the recent case between BskyB and EDS in the United Kingdom, which illustrates the consequences of overpromising when pitching for information technology work and consequently under delivering.

This discussion focuses on the pitch process and the repercussions of fradulent misrepresentation, as was the situation in the BskyB v EDS case. It also looks at the vendor requesting fixed costs and timeframes when the scope is not really known, or understood, by the teams pitching for the work, as well as the ramifications of having a capped liability written into the contract.

Kate talks about the possibility of this type of case arising in Australia and the ways in which both parties can avoid this happening in the pitch process, particularly in the IT industry.

To listen to the radio interview, please click here.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Press Releases from this Firm
Recent Content from this Firm
By Andrea Beatty, Jim Bulling
By Andrea Beatty, Jim Bulling
By Jenny K. Mee, Murray Deakin, Jemimah Roberts
By Holly K. Towle, Kendra H. Nickel-Nguy
By Belinda Copley
By Jonathan Feder
By Russell Lyons, Andrea Beatty, Becki Tam, Brad Lynch
By Jennifer Mee, Jemimah Roberts
By Sandra Steele, Belinda Montgomery, Marcel Marquardt
By Steven Wulff, Ashley Cameron
Font Size: