This was an oral agreement days before the 90-day period. Immediately, following the meeting the BTT manager sent Chou an e-mail with “Strat Deal” in the subject line, reiterating the key terms of the oral distribution agreement in regard to price, time frames, and obligations of both parties (Melvin, 2011 Only an oral agreement was reached; legal draft and the signature of both company’s present and no contract exists. 2. What facts may weigh in favor or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract? Facts that weight in favor of Chou: • Big time had paid $25K for the negotiation rights for his board game; this would make Chou to think that the company had an agreement • everything they agreed on was oral agreement * Facts that weigh against Chou: • no written contract • No signatures 4.
The initial negotiation deal states that there would not be any distribution agreement/contracts if it was not in writing and signed by both parties. Although the BTT manager did post an email to Chou outlining the terms and conditions of a distribution contract it does not officially confirm an agreement because neither party signed the document to seal a contract agreement as was required. Without any signatures of either parties or legally binding drafts it was previously agreed upon by both parties that no agreement or contracts exist. 2. What facts may weigh in favor of or against Chou in terms of the parties’ objective intent to contract?
Does the fact that the parties were communicating by e-mail have any impact on your analysis in Question 1 and 2 Yes, I feel the terms were agreed upon and the agreement should be honored for the 25,000.00, however the change in management could have been a result of no longer wanting to pursue the distribution of the game. 4. What role does the statute of frauds play in this contract? This contract is not enforceable unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 5.
The IT team had the business team so confused during the meeting that they eventually just tuned out and IT never actually got to talking about how the new technology could be used for marketing and why it was a good idea. The next issue is the lack of integration between IT and business. Not only do they have problems communicating the points they are trying to get across in language that can be easily understood, but the business end feels as though IT does not know how to meet their goals. A good example of this is on page 76 where it is discussed that “IT people don’t even know some of our basic business functions” and “We don’t feel IT is contributing to creating new business value for Hefty.” Lastly it seems as though there is bad time management and planning on the IT end. I cannot be too harsh on this considering that many projects do not go as planned, on schedule or on budget but this did raise a red flag in the mini case.
Case Scenario: Big Time Toymaker Paper Introduction In this week’s team assignment, our team will discuss an assignment from Chapter 6 text "Theory of Practice." The assignment deals with a contract dispute between Big Time Toymaker (BTT), a company that develops, manufactures, and distributes board games and other toys and the inventer of a game name Strat. The issue is that Mr. Chou, the inventer of the game signed an exclusive 90 day negotiation agreement with BTT for which Mr. Chou was paid $25,000. This agreement also contained a statement that no distribution agreement would be in place unless a contract for distribution was in place. This is where the issue stems from and the eventual reversal of an agreement to distribute by BTT.
Whilst the appointment of cabinet ministers is left solely to the Prime Minister to decide, their leaving can occur for a variety of reasons, in which the Prime Minister may play no part. Some may find the difficulties of working under pressure and sustaining a level of quality for their department too taxing, whilst others might have secrets of their private lies revealed to the public. Individual ministerial responsibility used to be an important factor in the resignation of a minster.This dictates that should their department make a serious error and reveal incompetence of that department, then the minister in charge should be accountable to these mistakes and take the blame publicly be resigning. Foreign Secretary of 1982, Lord Carrington resigned over the invasion of the Falkland Islands, saying he was “responsible for the conduct of that policy” which was a “humiliating affront to this country”. He in fact also admitted that much of the criticisms had been unfounded, but the importance of individual ministerial responsibility at that time made his resignation almost inevitable.
"Organizational Behavior" Case Study on Chapter 11 The case of Chapter 11 shows the communication problems. As taking the new role of being a privatized social service organization, IBM should have shared with ACS its organizational values and goals through effective communication process and methods. Outsourcing becomes an easier way for companies to collected resources; however the goal has to be shared through effective communication. IBM’s privatized social services failed to meet the clients’ needs, and the reasons can be attributed to three major parts. First, IBM didn’t communicate effectively to share its goals and achieve coordinated action.
What are the ethical issues here? First Issue The ethical issue in the case is junior colleague do not seen the sales invoice and the stock was being written off without proper accounted. This reflects the weak internal control of the company. If the invoice is not issue, this may understated the revenue and thus understate profit. In our opinion, the company is possibly with intension to understate the revenue and avoid the tax.
Previously the only amount of pressure that the courts were prepared to recognise amounting to duress would involve personal violence or threats too; this can be evidenced in the case of Barton v. Armstrong. The claimant was the managing director of a company and the defendant was the former chair person. The defendant made threats of violence if the claimant did not purchase shares. The claimant made a purchase but sought a declaration that the transaction was void for duress. The contract was held voidable because the threats of personal violence were a factor in the claimant’s decision, even though he may have entered the contract without the threats being made as he stood to gain.
We believe that both the employee and the employer were unethical in this case because it illustrates a degree of moral intensity. The employee had a due diligence to the employer and should have brought his concerns to higher management instead of blogging it on a low profile under a false name. The employer had a due diligence to the employee and should have expressed their concern to the employee. The employer could of asked the employee if he could have deleted the blog or edit it so that the name of the employer was not mentioned. The degree of harm that could have happened to the company was not justified because when a search was made in an Internet search and the blog was not easily accessible in the public domain and this does not give the employer the just cause for termination of the employee.