Grocery. inc.

I was immediately intrigued from the beginning of Food, Inc. There was interesting and valuable information brought up during the film. Many people do not think about where their food comes from. I believe that if people were to know where their food comes from, they would not want to eat it. There are 47,000 products at a grocery store. But, Food, Inc. implies that this is in fact an illusion because all of them are made with the same crops. The fact that there are only a few multi-national corporations that control all of the crops and meat production is a huge surprise. I believe that each person in society would be absolutely shocked if they were to watch this documentary.

The grocery industry has a relatively high market commonality; a lot of grocery stores are somewhat related in terms of technologies used, labor force and the products or services offered in the stores. Differentiation with other competitors is key for survival in this highly competitive industry.

Shaw, W.H. (2014). Business ethics: A Textbook with cases, (8th ed.). Boston, MA : Cengage.

Lau, T., & Johnson, L. (2013). The legal and ethical environment of business. (1st ed., p. 11.2-11.5).

This being despite the recession of 2008, we are witnessing an increasingly cooperative and sophisticated international business working environment. While it faces scrutiny in congress currently, the agreement of the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty was reached in October, 2015; the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty is also seemingly achievable with the revival of American economy in the near future. These new agreements will set up a worldwide business rule structure that will be fulfilled by many major economies. Within this new structure, businessmen and women will face ethical issues globally despite continuing cultural and regional factors still playing a big role within these issues and decisions being made. Learning and analyzing business ethical issues within the case competition will not only assist us to become global business leaders with a deep understanding of corporate social responsibilities but also prepare us to make better decisions for our

Several factors must be present to establish if a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Thus, the “four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and the legal object” (Kubasek, 2012, p. 304). The first element of the agreement would be deemed to

This paper was conducted as a Discussion Board Post assigned by Professor J. Reinke of: Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.

Yes Article 2 of the UCC does apply to the contracts between Grocery and their

Fall 2009 This case was prepared by Itir Karaesmen and Inbal Yahav of Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, College Park. The names, locations, and other information included

© Copyright 2009 by Cambridge Business Publishers, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form for any purpose without the written permission of the publisher.

The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), in contrast, falls under civil law, “which is based on a rigid code of rules” (businessdictionary.com, 2013). It was established to create a uniform set of laws for business transactions, since common law can vary from state to state (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013). As far as contracts are concerned, Article 2 of the UCC is of most significance. This part of the code deals with the sale of goods. Goods are defined in terms of contracts as anything that is moveable, other than money, investment securities and certain legal rights (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013). Common law, on the other hand, is used for contracts involving the sale of services or anything else other than goods (Beatty, Samuelson, Bredeson, 2013).

The Case Study is provided by the Harvard Business School and is considered necessary reading prior to the understanding the responses contained herein. This paper is

HBS Professor William Fruhan and writer John Banko prepared this case solely as a basis for class discussion and not as an endorsement, a source of primary data, or an illustration of effective or ineffective management. Although based on real events, and despite occasional references to actual companies, this case is fictitious and any resemblance to actual persons or entities is coincidental. Copyright © 2014 President and Fellows of Harvard College. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, call 1-800-545-7685, write Harvard Business Publishing, Boston, MA 02163, or go to http://www.hbsp.harvard.edu. This publication may not be digitized, photocopied, or otherwise reproduced, posted, or transmitted, without the permission of Harvard Business School.

Copyright © 2009 Harvard Business School Publishing. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a

The defendants were informed that “the article to be carried was the broken shaft of a mill, and the plaintiffs were the millers of the mill.” As a result of the delayed delivery, the plaintiffs’ mill was inoperable for much longer that it would have been without delay. The plaintiffs’ claim for loss of profits as rejected by the court on the ground that it was too remote. Under the first limb, the losses suffered by the plaintiffs were not the natural consequence of the defendants’ breach; where the court found that in a great majority cases, the mill-owner would probably have another shaft. Under second limb, the loss of profits was not within the contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract, the plaintiff did not mention that his mill not able to operate without the shaft. In determining what was reasonably foreseeable by the parties, regard must be had to the knowledge possessed by the