1) I think one of the mistakes Livingston made was to assume the source of the company's problem was the old computer financial reporting system. The old financial reporting system is only part of there was no collaboration to determine if the MCCS was the core problem of the company. Livingston made the determination that the MCCS was the root cause of losing contracts without other input. I would have gathered my team and perform an impact analysis to determine if there was any hidden problems with the current system that could be fixed in a faster cheaper way. Another issue is earlier on the meeting the MIS manager stated that he guessed the feasibility study would be the first step in the design, development and implementation of the new MCCS.
rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B. Determined by Little condition is not completely within the promisor's control C. Sufficient cause An agreement that gives one party an unfettered right to terminate at any time will be interpreted to require “reasonable notice,” thus placing a limitation on that party's freedom sufficient to satisfy the consideration requirement 1. Certain terms (open) buyer is constrained to request amounts that are not unreasonably disproportional there is clearly consideration for the modification and it is enforceable the modern rule, an offer for a unilateral contract becomes an option for the offeree 2.
• Due to the fact that Mindersoft does not have full patents on products and time is of the essence, investment is needed as soon as possible. • We urge a cooperative discussion with Novak Biddle on
We have already acknowledged that Mr. Allison was not very well suited for the job. There were other issues that include technical, ethical, legal, contractual and other project management related issues. Technical Issue: The technical issue is simple, the project simply did not test well. STI simply required all components to operate effectively and efficiently between temperature ranges of -65 degrees F to 145 degrees F (The Orion Shield Project, 2003). SEC failed at this due to the fact that their product will not operate above 130 degrees F, and that the requirements would not be able to be met without different materials (The Orion Shield Project, 2003).
If he goes on the trip it is only good for Bill. If he declines the invitation then it is good for UWear, Joe, Paledenim, and in the end Joe’s family. Others with a different view than mine might say that Joe should use the Egoism theory. This theory suggests that we should act only in our self-interest and that failure to do so keeps us from reaching our potential, (Forman, 2008). Someone might suggest this theory because they believe that Joe should act in his best interest and if he does then he will not go on the trip.
Since the Walton Work Wear line is in the production stage, its accumulated development costs should be capitalized. The Carroway Cool Top has not started it commercial production which would allow the development costs not to be amortized yet. Also interest costs on loans to generate financing for the R&D activates of a product can be capitalized rather than expensed. The capitalization of interest would allow CCL to reduce taxable income in the future when it is more profitable. I would recommend that CCL make the above changes immediately so that the financail statements are not incorrect.
They can simply walk away from the deal if we do not honor their price or time. This would have no effect in Marton’s position, as it would be the same as it was before Marton sent us their bid. Based on their BATNA’s getting a deal done between De Havilland and Marton would be a win for both parties, and walking away would be a loss for both parties. It would be a greater loss for De Havilland, as it would have to spend more time, effort and money on identifying a suitable supplier. Recommendation I recommend that De Havilland sign a five-year contract with Marton.
This agreement is the contract which governs what is considered acceptable. There is no mention of being promoted in his current position as an option in the written agreement – only as a remedy request from the union. Management could redefine the pay scale and job definition of Mr. Mitchell’s current position; however, it would need to be when he vacates the job and need applicants and being sought. Therefore, Mr. Mitchell should not receive a promotion and receive back pay while in his current position. If the potential loophole for management to make intentional “errors” is a union concern, then the union should seek contract language changes to remedy it.
EXCEPTIONS: overcome rule by finding a REAL promise - frame illusory promise as unilateral contract => enforceable ex. Gurfein (99): had window to cancel, but didn’t => enforceable ➢ COULD HAVE bound other party if exercise option - Implied promises ➢ UCC §2-306 (2): a contract to engage in exclusive dealing gives rise to an implied promise to use best efforts Ex. Wood v. Lucy (104): mkt designs for profits ➢ ct implied promise: to make reasonable efforts b/c w/o implied promise, the contract would be meaningless b/c structural agreement = incentive to use best effort is built in Ex. Grouse (110): promised at-will job, not allowed to start work ➢ implied promise in at-will jobs = “good faith opportunity to perform satisfactorily’ - Structural agreements Ex. Lacledes(106): supply propane for long period ➢ although not bound to purchase, practical binding exists ➢ pipes connected to Amoco supply source ➢ hostage theory of contracts: voluntarily
(TCOs 4 and 8) Which of the following is a dynamic lot-sizing technique that calculates the order quantity by comparing the carrying cost and the setup (or ordering) costs for various lot sizes and then selects the lot size in which these are most nearly equal? (Points : 4) Kanban Just-in-time system MRP Least unit cost Least total cost Question 9. 9. (TCO 3) When considering outsourcing, what should firms be sure to avoid? (Points : 4) Losing control of noncore activities that don't distinguish the firm Allowing outsourcing to develop into a substitute for innovation Giving the outsourcing partner opportunities to become a strong competitor Allowing employees transferred to the outsourcing partner to rejoin the