‘HAL will take full responsibility for Rafales’

[janon]

Responsibility is an obligation you have to do something in time and cost and quality promised.

Liability means that you're subject to repercussion (usually monetary) if the promise you made are not fulfilled, which can also be due to design flaws or process flaws etc.

So what happens if a company takes responsibility but not liability? If they take upon themselves the responsibility to do something in a certain time, cost and quality, but they fail to do so, what happens next? If there are no repercussions, then what is the difference between taking responsibility and not taking responsibility?

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

So what happens if a company takes responsibility but not liability? If they take upon themselves the responsibility to do something in a certain time, cost and quality, but they fail to do so, what happens next? If there are no repercussions, then what is the difference between taking responsibility and not taking responsibility?

A company takes responsibility for ITS PART, for ITS ROLE. Let me give you an example,

Dassault tells HAL that to build Rafale it has to anodize a certain part by chromic acid method which will provide 20 micron thin film.

HAL takes the responsibility of doing exactly that. However in doing so, if a film of only 5 micron is formed, the liability will be of Dassalut. HAL will refuse liability.

Now multiply this example by a 1000 times to realize the complexity of building an Aircraft. There is no way HAL can take liability for a product it has NO Idea of. ............. and Dassault refuses to assume Liability.

There in lies the problem.

 

[Turingsage]

A company takes responsibility for ITS PART, for ITS ROLE. Let me give you an example,

Dassault tells HAL that to build Rafale it has to anodize a certain part by chromic acid method which will provide 20 micron thin film.

HAL takes the responsibility of doing exactly that. However in doing so, if a film of only 5 micron is formed, the liability will be of Dassalut. HAL will refuse liability.

Now multiply this example by a 1000 times to realize the complexity of building an Aircraft. There is no way HAL can take liability for a product it has NO Idea of. ............. and Dassault refuses to assume Liability.

There in lies the problem.

In law as applied and recognised internationally when you take responsibility for some act you are liable for it. HAL and you are playing with words for make more khichri out of this snotball.

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

In law as applied and recognised internationally when you take responsibility for some act you are liable for it. HAL and you are playing with words for make more khichri out of this snotball.

I do these kind of negotiations all the time so I know what I am talking about. Contracts are designed to pin point responsibility and mitigate liability. Its part of Risk mitigation.

 

[topgun047]

A company takes responsibility for ITS PART, for ITS ROLE. Let me give you an example,

Dassault tells HAL that to build Rafale it has to anodize a certain part by chromic acid method which will provide 20 micron thin film.

HAL takes the responsibility of doing exactly that. However in doing so, if a film of only 5 micron is formed, the liability will be of Dassalut. HAL will refuse liability.

Now multiply this example by a 1000 times to realize the complexity of building an Aircraft. There is no way HAL can take liability for a product it has NO Idea of. ............. and Dassault refuses to assume Liability.

There in lies the problem.

Yes Russia and France have both used this trick before to escape iron clad ToT written in the contract.

They cited lack of maturity of Indian industry,that did not have the capability perform the processes correctly, due to lack of relevant infrastructure and insisted India either import certain parts which they initially agreed will be manufactured in India or pay extra money to buy the equipment/technology needed to manufacture those parts.
Its nothing short of blackmail.

This time MoD has wisened up to such tricks.

IMO best compromise is to assess each delay thoroughly
If HAL is found to be in violation of the practices prescribed by OEM then it should be liable.
If Dassault is found to be holding up on the transfer of equipment or processes then it should be liable.

Which brings us to the question who gets to decide which entity is responsible for delay ?
I think that is the sticking point in negotiations.

 

[Turingsage]

I do these kind of negotiations all the time so I know what I am talking about. Contracts are designed to pin point responsibility and mitigate liability. Its part of Risk mitigation.

Even your reply confirms what I said. "Mitigate liability" NOT absolve you of it. As for you doing these negotiations all the time you get what you pay for

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

Which brings us to the question who gets to decide which entity is responsible for delay ?
I think that is the sticking point in negotiations.

Usually in such circumstances the customer, which here is IAF, is in the best position to play the arbitrator.

Dassalut would want an international arbitration which might run in their favour or worse, delay the delivery of aircrafts. Either way the IAF loses and HAL gets blamed.

Even your reply confirms what I said. "Mitigate liability" NOT absolve you of it. As for you doing these negotiations all the time you get what you pay for

Heard of Insurance ? That is usually how liability is taken care of. Before that is mitigation. In between lies determining who is liable. Now if you have nothing relevant to say, don't say anything.

 

[Srinivas]

HAL has developed the LCA and also executed these projects well, they gained experience and now they are confident of manufacturing Rafale.

To achieve maturity in Aerospace sector India took time and they thought this is the right moment to sign the deal.

DRDO and HAL can execute these kind of projects with some technical assistance.

 

[ito]

Time to sign the deal. It has taken too long time. And our sqdn strength has come down drastically.

 

[sancho]

Will the EF consortium or any other OEM be willing to take responsibility for the aircrafts manufactured by HAL?

That's what we need to know and we only will find out if we ask them. A yes, gives us not only an alternative, but also increases pressure on Dassault. We don't even have to negotiate officially, it's just a confirmation on the EF bid (or if there was a revised offer last year). But the back and forth with Dassault that we see for 3 years now, doesn't get anywhere as it seems. We need decisions now, no matter which way!

 

[Turingsage]

Usually in such circumstances the customer, which here is IAF, is in the best position to play the arbitrator.

Dassalut would want an international arbitration which might run in their favour or worse, delay the delivery of aircrafts. Either way the IAF loses and HAL gets blamed.



Heard of Insurance ? That is usually how liability is taken care of. Before that is mitigation. In between lies determining who is liable. Now if you have nothing relevant to say, don't say anything.

Your brain is moving in ever decreasing circles. If you were in a car accident and you accept "full responsibility" (out of HALS own mouth) who is liable ??? Do you expect the other party to accept liability when you admit you are "fully responsible" (again in case you missed it for the umteenth time in HALS own words).


You can bluff bluster and salami slice as much as you like but no court will assign liability to the party that doesnt accept responsibility as opposed to one that accepts "full responsibility" as HAL does.

Involved parties cannot be arbiters. In other words they cannot be the judge jury and executioners. Arbitration (if it ever got to that point as this is an open and shut case) by its very nature would require impartial arbitrator

 

[MokshaVimukthi]

Your brain is moving in ever decreasing circles. If you were in a car accident and you accept "full responsibility" (out of HALS own mouth) who is liable ??? Do you expect the other party to accept liability when you admit you are "fully responsible" (again in case you missed it for the umteenth time in HALS own words).

LOL. If I was in a car accident, it is not for me to assume responsibility, a ARBITRATOR or a COURT (third party) will determine that and the liability.

It will all depend on, if I hit the car in front of me, or the car behind me hit me. Either way its an accident. They will look into who was following the rules and who wasn't.

If you do not even have the basic intelligence to understand a simple accident, why do you even bother to understand international contract negotiations ? It is just way too much for you.

You can bluff bluster and salami slice as much as you like but no court will assign liability to the party that doesnt accept responsibility as opposed to one that accepts "full responsibility" as HAL does.

You mean if a murderer does not assume responsibility he will not be set to jail ? ....... what an idiot !!

Involved parties cannot be arbiters. In other words they cannot be the judge jury and executioners. Arbitration (if it ever got to that point as this is an open and shut case) by its very nature would require impartial arbitrator

Stop wasting my time with your foolish prattle. Don't bother to reply.

 

[Turingsage]

You are a moron and will remain one. HAL accepts "full responsibility" for its manufacture of the jets. The idea that dassault should accept liability for what HAL does in its own facilities is outarageous nonsense.

And here I will leave your 2 brain cells to their Bhangra dance

 

[nik22]

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) chairman T Suvarna Raju on Thursday said that HAL is willing to take full responsibility for the Rafales that it manufactures if the contract with French Defence major Dassault is signed. The comment assumes significance in the backdrop of a disagreement between India and Dassault over who would take guarantee for the Rafale fighter jets.
The Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft project involves buying of 18 aircraft from Dassault in flyaway condition, while the rest are to be manufactured by HAL under license.
‘HAL will take full responsibility for Rafales’ | The Indian Express


so what does that mean ??
Dassault wouldnot be held responsible for jets manufactured by HAL .

and dassault can now easily save it's skin from blames & legal sues by india if any of those 95 million dollar rafale jet built by HAL from indian tax payer's money crashes !!





CHEERS

What is the need of public comment when contract negotiations are going on? Govt should tame talkative babus.

 

[JohnyD]

So what happens if a company takes responsibility but not liability? If they take upon themselves the responsibility to do something in a certain time, cost and quality, but they fail to do so, what happens next? If there are no repercussions, then what is the difference between taking responsibility and not taking responsibility?

its like teachers are responsible to impart the best education to students...but are not held responsible if few students flunk or do not do well in higher education. ..do I make any sense ?