Posted: September 25th, 2022

Contracts and Ethics

Contracts and Ethics
Step 1: Learn in regards to the following instances:

On Sunday, October 6, 1974, the Leweiston Lodge of Elks sponsored a golf match on the Fairlawn Nation Membership in Poland, Maine. For promotional functions, Marcel Motors, an vehicle dealership, agreed to present any golfer who shot a hole-in-one a brand new 1974 Dodge Colt. Fliers promoting the match have been posted within the Elks Membership and despatched to potential members. On the day of the match, the 1974 Dodge Colt was parked close to the clubhouse, with one of many posters conspicuously displayed on it. Alphee Chenard, Jr., who had seen the promotional literature relating to the hole-in-one supply, registered for the match and paid the requisite entrance payment. Whereas taking part in the thirteenth gap of the golf course, within the presence of the opposite members of his foursome, Chenard shot a hole-in-one. When Marcel Motors refused to tender the car, Chenard sued for breach of contract. [Chenard v. Marcel Motors, 387 A.2d 596, 1978 Me. Lexis 911 (Maine 1978)]

– Was the contract a bilateral or unilateral contract?
-Do you assume Chenard ought to have received?
-Was it moral for Marcel Motors to refuse to present the car to Chenard?

Richard Zientara was pals with Chester and Bernice Kaszuba. All three have been residents of Indiana. Bernice, who was employed in an Illinois tavern the place
Illinois state lottery tickets have been offered, had beforehand obtained lottery tickets for Zientara as a result of Indiana didn’t have a state lottery. In early April 1984,
Zientara requested that Kaszuba buy an Illinois lottery ticket for him. He gave Kaszuba the cash for the ticket and the numbers 6-15-16-23-24-37.
Kaszuba bought the ticket, however when it turned out to be the successful mixture, value $1,696,800, she refused to present the ticket to Zientara and
unsuccessfully tried to gather the cash. Zientara filed go well with in opposition to Kaszuba in Indiana, claiming the ticket and proceeds thereof. [Kaszuba v. Zientara,
506 N.E.2d 1, 1987 Ind. Lexis 874 (Ind. 1987)]

-Was the contract authorized?
-Did the Kaszubas act ethically on this case?

Indiana Tri-Metropolis Plaza Bowl (Tri-Metropolis) leased a constructing from Charles H. Glueck to be used as a bowling alley. The lease offered that Glueck was to supply
satisfactory paved parking for the constructing. The lease gave Tri-Metropolis the appropriate to approve the plans for the development and paving of the car parking zone. When Glueck
submitted paving plans to Tri-Metropolis, it rejected the plans and withheld its approval. Tri-Metropolis argued that the plans wanted to fulfill its private satisfaction
earlier than it needed to approve them. Proof confirmed that the plans have been commercially affordable within the circumstances. A lawsuit was filed between
Tri-Metropolis and Glueck. [Indiana Tri-City Plaza Bowl, Inc. v. Estate of Glueck, 22 N.E.2d 670, 1981 Ind.App. Lexis 1506 (Ind. App. 1981)]

-Who ought to have received, in your opinion?
-Was it moral for Tri-Metropolis to reject the plans?

Step 2: Submit your responses to the questions posed in every case to the dialogue boarde

Case 1
– Was the contract bilateral or unilateral?
This was a unilateral contract as just one occasion supplied a reward and, due to this fact, was certain by obligation (Rotondo, 2020). Marcel Motors was the offeror who proposed to reward any golfer who shot a hole-in-one with a Dodge Colt.
-Do you assume Chenard ought to have received?
Chenard ought to have received the Dodge Colt. This was as a result of, similar to different gamers, he was promised that upon capturing a hole-in-one, he would get rewarded. His participation within the sport was influenced by this reward which was even included within the promoting pamphlets.
-Was it moral for Marcel Motors to refuse to present the car to Chenard?
No, it was unethical. Marcel Motors failed to stick to its unilateral contract, and due to this fact, Chenard can take authorized motion in opposition to the corporate.

Case 2
-Was the contract authorized?
Sure, the contract was verbal, and it was a mutual settlement between Zientara and Kaszuba (Müßgens & Priddat, 2022). They’d each agreed that Kaszuba would buy the tickets with the given mixture for Zientara.

-Did the Kaszubas act ethically on this case?
Kaszuba didn’t act ethically. He agreed to buy the ticket with the given mixture with none circumstances that he would maintain the proceedings if it have been the successful ticket. Due to this fact, Kaszuba didn’t respect their mutual settlement with Zientara, and he might be punished for breach of a verbal contract.
Case three

-Who ought to have received, in your opinion?
Tri-Metropolis ought to have received. Based on the lease, Tri-Metropolis had the permission and proper to approve or reject the submitted plans. Due to this fact, Tri-Metropolis was exercising its proper, which might be acknowledged even by the regulation as written within the lease.
-Was it moral for Tri-Metropolis to reject the plans?
Sure, it was moral for tri-city to reject the plans. If Glueck didn’t need Tri-Metropolis to have any say on the plans, it shouldn’t have offered Tri-Metropolis with the appropriate to approve the plan, as Tri-Metropolis has extra energy over how these plans ought to seem like.

References
Rotondo, A. (2020). Rethinking contracts: The center of eric Berne’s transactional Assessment. Transactional Assessment Journal, 50(three), 236-250.
Müßgens, J., & Priddat, B. P. (2022). Contracts as Cooperation: About an Implicit Ethics of Transactions. In The Relational View of Economics (pp. 311-331). Springer, Cham.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Contracts and Ethics