Cisco Indirect Channel Partner Agreement

Judge Gregory H. Lewis, who presided over the trial in California Superior Court in Santa Ana, California, ruled Tuesday that several parts of Cisco`s ICPA were sometimes unscrupulous because Infra-Comm was unable to negotiate the terms of the agreement during the renewal process. A judge`s ruling on Cisco`s reseller deal could trigger a flood of complaints from partners who believe their businesses have been harmed by the network giant`s Indirect Channel Partner Agreement (ICPA). Judge Gregory H. Lewis at the California Superior Court in Santa Ana, California, who led a lawsuit between former reseller Infra-Comm and Cisco, ruled that parts of Cisco`s ICPA were “ruthless,” ChannelWeb reports. “Unscrupulous” means a contract or part of a contract that is unilateral in favour of the person who has superior bargaining power. This week, the judge ruled ruthless three provisions in Cisco`s ICPA: that the partner does not have the ability to negotiate the terms of the contract if it uses the Cisco site to renew contracts; that Cisco may terminate a reseller agreement with only one month or without notice at the beginning of each year; and that ICPA limits the damage to what a Cisco reseller pays in three months for services and products, which could be unfair to long-standing resellers. “We will continue to vigorously defend ourselves against Infra-Comm`s accusations. As more than 80% of our annual product and service sales are sold by our channel partners, we are committed to their success and proud of our award-winning channel programs,” Said Carvell. In a ruling that could impact reseller contracts across the channel, the judge ruled in the lawsuit between Cisco and one of its solution providers that parts of Cisco`s reseller contract are ruthless. Select, Premier, and Gold partner certifications reflect the breadth of your skills in certain technologies. With a focus on hybrid IT and business transformation, certifications can help you increase profitability. Earning certifications shows customers the areas in which you can help them become digital executives.

You can also acquire multinational and global certifications. While the jury will consider the verdict during its deliberation, Cisco may ultimately appeal the verdict, Daucher said. “But it`s the discretion of a judge,” he said. “She has the right to have respect in the appeal. I don`t think Cisco will be able to attack the results of scruples in vocation. . Cisco will likely have to rewrite its contract. “The crux of this question is whether the plaintiff had the ability to negotiate,” Judge Lewis said. “Given the `click to accept` nature of the treaty, the Tribunal finds that the complainant has fulfilled his burden, his initial burden, that he has not been able to negotiate the conditions.” Infra-Comm, a solutions provider based in San Juan Capistrano, California, claims Cisco violated its indirect Channel Partner Agreement (ICPA) and the terms of its registration program by handing over to AT&T a significant potential agreement with Irvine Company, a real estate development company. “This judgment is now a matter of public registration,” he said. “It`s not going away.

This is something that will never go away. Judge Lewis cited evidence that Infra-Comm lost 90 percent of its business as well as 10 transactions recorded in a total comparison of more than US$2 million it worked on when Cisco terminated ICPA. . . .

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google +
  • LinkedIN
Tagged in