A buyer, who had previously ordered phones from a Company, recently ordered a batch of 2,500 phones from it at the price of 40/unit, for a total of 100,000, plus a fixed 500 shipping charge, for delivery to "CIF Miami." At the Buyer's request, the phones have the Buyer's logo printed on the back. The Company had some delays in fulfilling the order, and now Buyer refuses to pay more than 30/unit, claiming that the phones not only arrived late but also appeared to be damaged by moisture from the ship's hull. The Buyer returned them to the Company (at Buyer's expense) within a day of taking delivery. The Buyer is also demanding payment from the Company as compensation as it says that it had to pay to a customer who bought the Company's phone, and threatened a lawsuit after the phone caused him to crash his car, which he had argued was the result of the phone's interference with the car's GPS system.
[...] Despite the fact that Brenda wants to works from home she seems to be qualified for the job and Eunice (probably the head of the Human Ressources department) has approved her arrival inside the firm. However we are concerned that Annette will engage retaliation against the company and will go to see our competitors and help them steal our customers. In the following parts we will deal with these two issues separatly. The SmallCo issue The first thing to determine is in which court the dispute could be settle. In Europe the trial takes place in the defendant's city. In our case we are the defendant and so it should take place in New-York. [...]
[...] The second sentiv point if the enventual lick of infrmation from fired and agry employees. Each contracts should include a precise clause of non- competition. Situation N°3 “Company is interested in forming an entity that will sell its phones in the United States and wants to minimize the tax it will pay on the new entity's profits. At the same time, Company is negotiating a deal to have a new Chinese manufacturer (“ChinaCo”) produce its phones, but Company is concerned that ChinaCo may try to duplicate the CoolPhone and compete with Company. [...]
[...] It is what we want. But the ownership structure is fairly limited (as its name says) and so we will not be able to do exactly what we want with the structure[4]. We can conclude that is not the perfect match but still. Finally the Subchapter Corporation seems to be the structure which matches the most what we are aiming for. It has only one tax “step”, paid by the shareholders. And the memorandum of association is apparently free enough to let us do to what we want. [...]
[...] And as with the Annette I think that going to the court for such reason may not give us any chances to win against her. Conclusion In conclusion the company needs to be extremly carefull with these situation. I think that regardign all possible decision to take the firm should first try to speak Annette and calm down. But the firm also needs to prevent identical futur events. In order to do so it should begin with including in each contracts or conventions a first clause for the decision process. [...]
[...] The second dangerous point is her age. In fact Annette is 61 years old. If we fire her she could sue us for discrimination regarding her age. If it has to happened I think we will loose. Nowadays our developed countries make a great deal out of the recrutment discrimination due to the age. Therefor there is a huge risk that Annette win in this particular context. Then the company has to deal with the hiring of Brenda. Here again this is a sensitiv question as she is Annette's partner. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
