Compensations in Business Law

Martin’s Lawsuit Against Morton Plant Hospital

Martin is able to enforce the promise of her boss. Both parties, the boss at Morton Plant hospital and Joy Martin, agreed on Joy Martin’s promotion and a 10% raise after a year. Martin decided to say no to the invitation to join Bayfront from Teresa Dowson. However, her boss did not fulfill the promises after the Morton plant collapsed in eight months. Martin can file a lawsuit against the hospital mentioned above and demand compensation because of the contract violation. Posner and Sykes (244-246) state that according to efficient breach theory, the parties are permitted to breach agreements, but then they have to pay for the losses that result from such breach. Further, the theory suggests that in cases where it is no longer economically efficient, it is better off to breach a contract. Under the same theory, Morton Plant Hospital is destined to abide by the terms and conditions, thus should compensate Martin for the resulting loss.

Bayfront Hospital’s Freedom to Terminate the Contract

On the other hand, Bayfront hospital is legally allowed to bring the contract to an end. As an independent organization, Bayfront has the freedom to conduct business on its terms, that include restructuring the organization and reshuffling the workforce. According to Twomey, Jennings, and Greene (222-223), a contract only exists if both parties entering a contract agree to the offer and terms of each other. Therefore, no contract exists between Martin and Bayfront that would necessitate the need for compensation for the lost job opportunity.

Agreement between Martin and Morton Plant Hospital

However, there is an agreement between Martin and Morton Plant Hospital that calls for both parties to abide by the conditions of such agreement. Twommey, Jennings, and Greene (230-232) postulate that both parties under a contract must show the willingness to terminate the offer and should one party decide to end the contract prematurely, he/she must be prepared to face the consequences including the resulting damages. Notably, upon dismissing Bayfront’s offer, Martin is promised a promotion and a salary increase by her boss. The two enters into an oral agreement, and thus Martin wins because Martin’s boss is obliged to pay for the damages (job loss) as required by efficient breach theory.

Scenario 6: Antitrust

Violation of price discrimination law occurred. According to the second degree of price discrimination law, the quantity of goods demanded by consumers will determine the discount that is offered to them (Gifford and Kudrle 1241-1242). Jabil circuits agreed on the standard discount to all customers purchasing more than 50 container loads in a calendar year. Purchasing power and the ability of the consumers differed hence only three managed to meet the set requirements in order to enjoy the discounts provided. Violation of price discrimination law occurred when consumers who never reached the required quantity of goods to be purchased were not treated equally compared to their counterparts who could purchase the recommended quantity.

Scenario 8: Recommendations

Considering the complaints reported by the majority of the consumers, the company should not set the prices too high for the discounts to be offered. Instead, a price that can be achieved by most customers should be set to avoid price discrimination. Jabil circuits set the prices too high for the consumers to realize the agreed discount rates. In this case, 25 % discount offered demanded too much from the consumers. This can lower the morale of the buyers and divert their attention if their complaints are not considered.

Jabil circuits published discount rates on the customer portals once a year, and there were no changes made by the company before the end of the calendar year. The issue of transparency and flexibility arises in the manner in which the company relates to the customers. There is the need to ensure frequent changes throughout the year to suit all customers and ensure the majority of the consumers realize the set discount rates.

Works Cited

Gifford J. Daniel and Robert T. Kudrle. The Law and economics of Price Discrimination in Modern Economics: Time for Reconcialiation? University of California, Davis, vol. 43: 1235, 2010.

Posner A. Eric and Alan O. Sykes. Efficient Breach of International Law: Optimal Remedies, “Legalized Noncopliance,” and Related Issues. The Michigan Law Review Association, vol. 110, No. 2, 2011, pp. 243-294.

Twomey, David .P. Marianne M. Jennings, & Stepphanie M. Greene. Anderson’s business law and the legal environment, Comprehensive volume (23rd ed.) Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. ISBN 13: 978-1-305-57508-0, 2017. Print.