To Bind or not to Bind: It’s in the Contract: Formalizing Collaboration Through Partnering Contracts in the US, British and Danish Construction Industries

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

410 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

This article discusses the formalization of collaboration through partnering contracts in the construction industry in the USA, Great Britain and Denmark. The article compares the different types of collaborative partnering contracts in the three countries, and provides a conclusion on whether the collaborative partnering contract should be binding or non-binding, based on the three empirical contracts analyzed in this article. The partnering contracts in Great Britain and Denmark are legally binding, while in the USA the partnering agreements are non-binding charters or letters of intent. This article discusses, in a theoretical perspective, the legal reasoning behind the different partnering approaches, both from a historical and contract law perspective, and furthermore applies a game theoretical approach in evaluating binding versus non-binding partnering contracts. The analysis focuses on private collaborative multi-partner partnering contracts in the construction industry and compares contractual clauses from US, British and Danish partnering contracts. The article argues that from a legal and a game theoretical perspective, the collaborative partnering contract should be legally binding in order to minimize the risk of self-optimization and improve joint utility through the contract, and thus recommends that the US partnering regime should shift from a non-binding partnering agreement to a legally binding partnering contract.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation
Vol/bind1
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)288-314
ISSN2055-5636
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2015

Emneord

  • Collaboration
  • Partnering
  • Contract law
  • Comparative law
  • Game theory
  • USA
  • Denmark
  • Britain

Citer dette

@article{f22aa5b4bf6b483f8d928e700ad88f2d,
title = "To Bind or not to Bind: It’s in the Contract: Formalizing Collaboration Through Partnering Contracts in the US, British and Danish Construction Industries",
abstract = "This article discusses the formalization of collaboration through partnering contracts in the construction industry in the USA, Great Britain and Denmark. The article compares the different types of collaborative partnering contracts in the three countries, and provides a conclusion on whether the collaborative partnering contract should be binding or non-binding, based on the three empirical contracts analyzed in this article. The partnering contracts in Great Britain and Denmark are legally binding, while in the USA the partnering agreements are non-binding charters or letters of intent. This article discusses, in a theoretical perspective, the legal reasoning behind the different partnering approaches, both from a historical and contract law perspective, and furthermore applies a game theoretical approach in evaluating binding versus non-binding partnering contracts. The analysis focuses on private collaborative multi-partner partnering contracts in the construction industry and compares contractual clauses from US, British and Danish partnering contracts. The article argues that from a legal and a game theoretical perspective, the collaborative partnering contract should be legally binding in order to minimize the risk of self-optimization and improve joint utility through the contract, and thus recommends that the US partnering regime should shift from a non-binding partnering agreement to a legally binding partnering contract.",
keywords = "Collaboration, Partnering, Contract law, Comparative law, Game theory, USA , Denmark , Britain, Collaboration, Partnering, Contract law, Comparative law, Game theory, USA , Denmark, Britain",
author = "Tvarn{\o}, {Christina D.}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1177/2055563616641025",
language = "English",
volume = "1",
pages = "288--314",
journal = "Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation",
issn = "2055-5636",
publisher = "Sage Publications Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - To Bind or not to Bind: It’s in the Contract

T2 - Formalizing Collaboration Through Partnering Contracts in the US, British and Danish Construction Industries

AU - Tvarnø, Christina D.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This article discusses the formalization of collaboration through partnering contracts in the construction industry in the USA, Great Britain and Denmark. The article compares the different types of collaborative partnering contracts in the three countries, and provides a conclusion on whether the collaborative partnering contract should be binding or non-binding, based on the three empirical contracts analyzed in this article. The partnering contracts in Great Britain and Denmark are legally binding, while in the USA the partnering agreements are non-binding charters or letters of intent. This article discusses, in a theoretical perspective, the legal reasoning behind the different partnering approaches, both from a historical and contract law perspective, and furthermore applies a game theoretical approach in evaluating binding versus non-binding partnering contracts. The analysis focuses on private collaborative multi-partner partnering contracts in the construction industry and compares contractual clauses from US, British and Danish partnering contracts. The article argues that from a legal and a game theoretical perspective, the collaborative partnering contract should be legally binding in order to minimize the risk of self-optimization and improve joint utility through the contract, and thus recommends that the US partnering regime should shift from a non-binding partnering agreement to a legally binding partnering contract.

AB - This article discusses the formalization of collaboration through partnering contracts in the construction industry in the USA, Great Britain and Denmark. The article compares the different types of collaborative partnering contracts in the three countries, and provides a conclusion on whether the collaborative partnering contract should be binding or non-binding, based on the three empirical contracts analyzed in this article. The partnering contracts in Great Britain and Denmark are legally binding, while in the USA the partnering agreements are non-binding charters or letters of intent. This article discusses, in a theoretical perspective, the legal reasoning behind the different partnering approaches, both from a historical and contract law perspective, and furthermore applies a game theoretical approach in evaluating binding versus non-binding partnering contracts. The analysis focuses on private collaborative multi-partner partnering contracts in the construction industry and compares contractual clauses from US, British and Danish partnering contracts. The article argues that from a legal and a game theoretical perspective, the collaborative partnering contract should be legally binding in order to minimize the risk of self-optimization and improve joint utility through the contract, and thus recommends that the US partnering regime should shift from a non-binding partnering agreement to a legally binding partnering contract.

KW - Collaboration

KW - Partnering

KW - Contract law

KW - Comparative law

KW - Game theory

KW - USA

KW - Denmark

KW - Britain

KW - Collaboration

KW - Partnering

KW - Contract law

KW - Comparative law

KW - Game theory

KW - USA

KW - Denmark

KW - Britain

UR - http://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=4160000000000087&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

U2 - 10.1177/2055563616641025

DO - 10.1177/2055563616641025

M3 - Journal article

VL - 1

SP - 288

EP - 314

JO - Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation

JF - Journal of Strategic Contracting and Negotiation

SN - 2055-5636

IS - 4

ER -