"Your wish is our command" is outdated: the ICT supplier's duty of care

Liability Law, Contract Law, ICT Law

6 May 2026

“Your wish is our command” is outdated: the ICT supplier’s duty of care

Stelt u zich eens voor: u werkt al jaren met dezelfde zelfstandige. Hij stuurt facturen, factureert btw en heeft een eigen kvk-nummer. Toch krijgt u in 2026 ineens vragen van de Belastingdienst over de aard van uw samenwerking. Hoe heeft het zo ver kunnen komen?

: what ERP suppliers must now do

ERP implementations are among the most risky IT projects within organisations. Budget overruns, delays and disputes over responsibilities are a constant threat. The recent Supreme Court ruling (ECLI:NL:HR:2026:402) in the case between GAC and Verano once again makes clear that these risks are not only technical or organisational, but also have a clear legal dimension.

In this blog, I discuss what went wrong, how the court ruled and – more importantly – what lessons follow from this for both ICT suppliers and clients.

What was the case about?

The case between GAC and Verano concerned the implementation of an ERP system that GAC developed for Verano. Verano had assumed a largely standard solution with limited customisation. In practice, however, it turned out that the software did not sufficiently match Verano’s business processes. Considerably more customisation was needed than anticipated, causing the project to run over budget by more than 400% compared to the estimated budget.

The Court of Appeal ultimately ruled in favour of Verano and held that GAC had failed to perform the agreement because it had breached its duty of care towards Verano. GAC then went to the Supreme Court, but in cassation all of GAC’s grounds of appeal were rejected.

“Your wish is our command” is a thing of the past

The Court of Appeal based its ruling on the finding that, prior to entering into the agreement, GAC should have investigated Verano’s business operations more thoroughly. Only then could it have been established whether a standard solution was genuinely suitable.

In addition, GAC should have explicitly warned Verano of the risks of forgoing such an analysis. The fact that Verano itself did not want an extensive analysis does not change this. A professional ICT party can, after all, be expected not simply to accept such choices by the client if they may lead to critical problems.

This underlines an important practical point. It is not (any longer) sufficient to carry out what the client asks; the supplier must also step in when choices may be unrealistic or risky.

Expectation management is crucial

GAC’s failure did not only relate to the absence of an investigation, but also to the expectations this created. Based on the communication and the contractual starting points, Verano was entitled to assume that a standard solution would suffice.

When it later turned out that considerable customisation was needed to meet Verano’s requirements, this led to additional costs and delay. The Court of Appeal ruled that these costs could not be charged to Verano, because it did not need to foresee them.

Consequences for practice

The essence of the ruling is that an ICT supplier cannot simply limit itself to delivering what was contractually agreed. A professional party can be expected to also play an active role in the run-up to the project. Specifically, this means the supplier must:

investigate whether the intended solution is genuinely suitable for the client;
map out the relevant business processes and functional requirements;
point out to the client the risks, limitations and uncertainties of the chosen solution.

These obligations apply in particular in complex ICT projects such as ERP implementations, where the impact is significant and the organisation becomes highly dependent on the system.

Conclusion

The ruling confirms that the ICT supplier’s duty of care is an integral part of modern IT projects. It is not only about delivering software, but also about guiding the client towards a workable and suitable solution.

For clients, this means they may expect their supplier to think along with them and warn them where necessary. For ICT suppliers, it means they need to take a broader view of their role and organise their processes accordingly. Anyone who fails to do so runs the risk that a technical problem grows into a legal dispute, with all the financial consequences that entails.

To properly document your responsibilities as an ICT service provider and limit legal risks, it is essential to use proper quotations, contracts, general terms and conditions and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). The corporate lawyers of The Legal Company can help you draw up these documents and ensure that both ICT service providers and clients know exactly where they stand. Please contact us directly via info@thelegalcompany.nl or call 020 345 0152.

De afgelopen jaren stonden in het teken van de Wet VBAR, het wetsvoorstel dat een einde moest maken aan onduidelijkheid over de zzp’er. Het kabinet heeft delen van dat voorstel inmiddels geschrapt. Op het eerste gezicht is dat goed nieuws: minder regels, minder administratieve last. Maar in de praktijk blijven dezelfde toetsen overeind.

“De inhoud van de samenwerking is leidend, niet wat er op papier staat.”

De Belastingdienst handhaaft sinds 1 januari 2025 weer actief op schijnzelfstandigheid. En recente uitspraken van de Hoge Raad bevestigen dat rechters strikt toetsen of er sprake is van ondergeschiktheid en gezagsverhouding.

Voor uw praktijk betekent dit drie dingen. Een: leg de samenwerking duidelijk vast, met aandacht voor de inhoud. Twee: voorkom dat een zzp’er feitelijk werkt als werknemer. Drie: wees voorbereid op een controle, en weet hoe u de relatie kunt herzien als dat moet.

Heeft u vragen over uw concrete situatie? Wij sparren dagelijks met opdrachtgevers over hun zzp-relaties. Vraag een offerte op of bekijk onze Legal Safe abonnementen.