Case Analysis: Maitland Motors

As the VP of Sales for Excalibur I am required to negotiate with Knight Engines Inc to come to an agreement for a rush order of 8000 pistons within two weeks. It is in my personal interests to deliver a substantial profit to Excalibur for the benefit of shareholders. However, negotiating a deal with Knight may be the only chance for Excalibur to avoid a major loss in this quarter. Consequently, I aim to secure a profitable contract but am willing to trade current profit for future gain.

 New-Car Dealers account for an estimated 30% of all units sold in a given

| Jonathan Archer and Zefrem Cochrane are employees of the Rugged Trucks Company, a light truck division of Gigantic Motors Corporation.

To: Boss From: Re: American Dream Analysis Date 12/5/2014 Subject: Local Union P-9 vs Hormel Meat packing Company. Preparation is key when it comes to negotiating an agreement and a prefect example would be the Hormel Company vs the Local Union P-9 workers(meat packing). The Local Union and Hormel Company both were placed at the negotiation table due to wage cut and “unfair treatment” that was conducted by the management team. This disagreement caused the Local Union to rally up members from the meat packing department that influence the workers and workers from other factories to go on strike. During this negotiation both parties made a few mistakes that are costly and time consuming. Hormel Company

Firstly, we have to distinguish whether Jack makes an invitation to tender or an invitation to treat. According to Harvela Investments Ltd v. Royal Trust Co of Canada (CI) Ltd (1986), the usual analysis is that ‘an invitation to tender for a particular project is simply an invitation to treat. ' However, in the case of Harvela Investments Ltd, the invitation to tender is treated as an offer implicating legal obligations. I believe that Jack was making an invitation to treat rather than an invitation to tender, constituting an offer, for several reasons; firstly, the terms of the invitation are vague, with no specification of time for which acceptance of the ‘most competitive tender ' will remain open till; secondly, I infer that the lack

The centralised organisational structure at Company K was primarily responsible for the issue that involved Dylan and the contract in various ways. Through the centralised organisational structure, decisions within the organisation run from the top to the bottom hence the Canadian branches in both Toronto and Vancouver unable to make decisions on their own but rely on instructions from Japan. Thus, all business activities had to be based on the headquarters in Japan for decision making. Therefore, the branch and operational managers in the respective Canadian and US branches lacked the autonomy to make decisions on their own. The lack of autonomy to make decisions was the primary reason that made Dylan on the contract issue.

However, Candace was very skilled and duplicitous during the negotiation. While at no point did Candace lie to me. She did make the full entirety of Absentia’s plans for the property. It was later revealed to me, after the formal negotiation, that Absentia planned to develop a high-rise hotel directly behind the Bullard House. This is completely unacceptable to my constituents, however, the deal was already agreed upon by the time I was informed. Candace used the questionable negotiation strategy of deception to ensure she received a favorable deal. She knowingly withheld information that would have impact the terms of our deal. For her, the deal was a success. However, I am left feeling mislead. When I would question her about the types of commercial development that her constitutes sought to pursue, she would make vague references to tasteful additions within the property. The lack of effective question is a failure of mine. I should have begun to ask probing questions, as Lewicki suggests, when I realized that she was not fully disclosing information. Instead I allowed the ambiguous answers to be the basis of my decision

Roger Berg, the Vice President for Planning of the Lake Corporation, had to recommend a subcontractor for the environmental study project in connection with their planned large resort.  The contract has been decided in principle to be awarded to Ceil Grant, one of their regular subcontractors. However, after a lunch conversation with Del, who represented a larger contractor firm, Roger changed his mind, now recommending Del’s company to take on the project instead. Faced with a situation of moral dilemma, he has to decide what would be the right thing to

People- Pat Olafson is a local investor and real estate developer. In comparison to Sandy, Pat has been very financially successful. Their relationship seems to be multi-layered. Pat plays the role of bank, landlord, and client to Sandy and WoodCrafters. While not illegal, or even immoral, allowing one person, or entity, to have so much control over your business life isn’t the wisest decision. In addition, the combination of Pat’s success and Sandy’s hardships seems to have caused Sandy to be jealous of Pat’s success. It would be in Sandy’s best interest to recognize that his perception of Pat bears no significance on this negotiation. Sandy would be best served by leaving his perceptions behind and keeping his emotions in check.

Bruce got into more and more troubles, which he even did not know yet when he tried to maintain the business with Chuck. The higher position that Chuck got, the higher the demand that he ask for from Bruce Maitland. Bruce was unaware of the consequences and kept trying to please Chuck and his family. He thought easily that the closer he is to Chuck’s family, the more business deal that he could get. True to be told that Maitland Motor got many leasing agreement from their relationship with Chuck. However, every time Maitland Motor got a leasing agreement from Mid South Tool and Die, Bruce had to provide not only Chuck but also others, who involved in making decision process something to make these deals done. In the beginning, Bruce only had to please only

Since Georges’ conversation with Josh would be considered confidential in nature with respect to Breeland, it would limit Abby’s permission to inform them of any possible rework of the quote without express consent or approval of George. Since Tom Brennen would need to review any reworked quotes anyway, it doesn’t seem likely that Abby would violate any confidentiality requirements as directed by IMA Standards. Georges’ suggested game plan of billing the products twice could be seen as a misuse of confidential information since he is confident Josh will buy the materials but is still willing to move forward with the Breeland quote without disclosing the possibility of Josh’s purchase to Tom. George may also be engaging in a conflict of interest by using his brother and information gained in a non professional environment as a means to unethically increase revenue. It would also represent a departure from ethics and integrity as an activity that discredits the profession since it lacks communication with Breeland. If Josh does confirm he will purchase the materials within the 20 day usable product window, it would represent additional and more timely information and should signal Abby’s recommendation to revise Breeland’s quote, even if it is after the fact. It is a timing issue.

Jim realizes that at this point he needs to concentrate on asking questions and listening as well as keep his negotiating position hidden. He asks Ann pointedly whether they are any deal-breakers and what alternatives she would feel comfortable with. As they are dealing, Jim is looking for reciprocation on any concessions like an increased order size in exchange for a discount.

Bob’s own ethics are tested with the transaction. Bob knows he has a responsibility to keep a good relationship with his clients (Quality Lumber), but also feels that he has a responsibility to the end user of the product since he knows the lumber

amenable to the sale and had provided Hammond with significant amounts of data about their business and

1. The main criteria FEL uses to assign managers to their projects include time constraints and expertise. Clearly, managers with heavy workloads will not do as well as those without significant current time constraints. Hence, the likelihood that the work will progress smoothly under such managers is greater than otherwise. Expertise is also an important requirement to ensure that a project runs smoothly. Hence, the combination of low time constraints with the highest level of expertise appears to be a good basis for successful projects. However, one potential danger of assigning an apparently random number of managers to teams who need to work closely together could create communication problems, especially if these managers have not worked together before, or indeed if severe personality clashes occur. Hence, it might be a good idea to conduct regular assessments of the progress of the work as well as how well managers function together, particularly in a remote location such as Abu Dhabi.