About this service
Managed services — continuous technical maintenance, where a partner ensures over weeks and months the operation, monitoring, updating and incident response of systems — are today the foundation of almost every reasonably serious information system. Georgian law has no separate statute for managed services: the relationship is a blend of two classic contract types — works and mandate — governed by the corresponding chapters of the Civil Code and the general norms of freedom of contract. This service focuses precisely on getting that legal classification and the responsibilities flowing from it right — for service providers and customers alike.
The works contract — the result-oriented part
Article 629 of the Civil Code defines the works contract: under it, the contractor undertakes to perform the work stipulated by the contract, and the customer is obliged to pay the contractor the agreed remuneration. The part of a managed service that demands a concrete result — delivering a defined functionality, setting up an environment, carrying out a migration — fits exactly this model: there is work and there is its remuneration. Moreover, where the works contract contemplates the manufacture of an item and the contractor manufactures it from materials purchased by itself, it transfers to the customer ownership of the manufactured item — a rule that governs the transfer of assets created in a managed environment. It also matters that the compilation of a cost estimate connected with works is not reimbursed unless otherwise agreed — reimbursement of expenses separately exists only by agreement.
The mandate contract — the process-oriented part
The other half of a managed service — constant administration, the partner's actions in the client's interests — fits the mandate model. Under Article 709, under a mandate contract the mandatary is obliged to perform for the mandator one or several entrusted acts in the mandator's name and at its expense. This describes precisely functions such as daily system administration, user support in the client's name, maintenance of documentation and technical relations with third parties. Blending the two models is lawful and common, but it demands precision: where the agreement does not state which obligation follows which model, a dispute raises questions about remuneration, expenses, acceptance of the result and responsibility. A well-drafted managed-services agreement therefore always separates the two layers: one-off tasks — setup, migration, integration — are defined by their result and an acceptance procedure, while ongoing service is defined by periodic remuneration and measurable quality indicators. Such a structure gives both parties a precise language: when something fails, it is clear which norm and which annex applies.