Search results

To increase university–industry collaboration and research commercialisation, the Australian government recently introduced the Intellectual Property (IP) Framework, a set of online standard contracts. This follows a predecessor standard contract initiative, the IP Toolkit, which has not previously been evaluated. This paper aims to examine standard contracting in the innovation sector, tracing the policymaking behind the IP Toolkit using the lens of Macneil’s relational contract theory, to assess prospects of success for the new IP Framework, and similar initiatives in other jurisdictions.

This is a disciplined-configurative case study, drawing on qualitative secondary data analysis and applying Macneil’s relational contracting theory to guide case construction and generate hypotheses around likely success of standard contracting initiatives (stakeholder sentiment, stakeholder adoption). Within-case analysis process-traces development of the IP Toolkit, to discover what the policymakers wanted, knew and computed – and to detail observable implications Macneil’s theory predicts. Its themes are triangulated with multiple sources.

The case study, via Macneil’s theory, confirms the first hypothesis (resistant stakeholder sentiment) and partly validates the second hypothesis (low levels of adoption), demonstrating limited suitability of standard contracting in the dynamic and highly uncertain space of university–industry collaboration.

The study provides insights into the limited role that standard contracts can play in improving national collaborative research and development performance.

This is a novel theory-driven case study triangulated with previously unpublished data on the IP Toolkit’s website usage, and data from recent consultations on the new IP Framework. It has broader implications for other jurisdictions considering adoption of the standard contract model.

The purpose of this paper is to look at auditor obligations to their clients and potentially to third parties such as investors, with a focus on the quality of financial disclosure in an evolving legal framework.

The article outlines and compares established and emerging trends relative to information disclosure and contractual performance in parallel contexts where information asymmetry exists. In particular, this article considers the disclosure regime that has evolved in the insurance industry to address the substantial imbalance in the level of knowledge possessed by the insured in comparison to the prospective insurer. Abductive reasoning is used to identify causal constructs that explain the data pattern from which the theorised potential for judicial revision of the interpretation of “true and fair” in line with “good faith” in legal regulation is derived.

The authors conclude that there is little doubt that a duty of good faith in relation to auditor-company contractual dealings and potentially a broader good faith duty to third parties such as investors in companies may be on the horizon.

In the context of stated objectives by organisations such as the International Federation of Accountants to reconcile ethical and technical skills in the wake of the global financial crisis, there is an increased need to rebuild public and investor confidence in the underpinning integrity of financial reporting. This paper offers a perspective on one way to achieve this by recognising the similarities in the information asymmetry relationships in the insurance industry and how the notion of “good faith” in that relationship could be useful in the audit situation.