The case is unique because Sky claimed EDS was fraudulent, and had dishonestly exaggerated its abilities and resources when bidding for the contract.
This case result shows two things: IT suppliers’ sales teams must be more careful about their claims when they are trying to sell a system. Gone are the days when there was a disparity between what is sold and what is delivered.
Second, the liability cap is immaterial in fraud cases. EDS had a cap that it would not be liable for more than £30m worth of damages. But because Sky sued for fraud, the liability cap was rendered irrelevant.
These kind of sales processes are so long and complex that badly selling the solution does not imply bad faith. I'm completely sure that the sales team had not all the information of how things were going to be delivered and for sure they took some optimistic assumptions, but I'm sure they're not trying to swindle sky.
This case result shows two things: IT suppliers’ sales teams must be more careful about their claims when they are trying to sell a system. Gone are the days when there was a disparity between what is sold and what is delivered.
Second, the liability cap is immaterial in fraud cases. EDS had a cap that it would not be liable for more than £30m worth of damages. But because Sky sued for fraud, the liability cap was rendered irrelevant.
What do you think?