Pacific Oil Company Failed Negotiation Essay example

Pacific was not willing to walk away from Relient which I felt they had unreasonable request. .

Negotiation and Conflict Application Paper I immigrated to the United States 15 years ago in pursuit of higher education and a successful career. I discovered that I had to significantly readjust the habits engrained in me from childhood through interacting with new people and dealing with conflicts. My traditional and conservative upbringing in India provided a sheltered environment and programmed me into listening and obeying elders and avoiding conflict at all costs. It was my belief that any conflict big or small with the close ones would cause a strain in the relationships. Thus, I often avoided conflicts and accommodated the wishes of others at the cost of my own. I considered this

Initially, Modelo was the more appealing option. They were also a family owned company with a similar family dynamic. Carlos Fernández was the head of Modelo at the time. Interestingly enough, Modelo was not interested in the deal because years before, August III had gone to Mexico for a visit and offended the controlling families of the company. The behind the scenes head of Modelo, Don Antonio, was not fond of The Third or AB. The only way Don Antonio would allow the deal to be completed was if Carlos became the head of the companies. The grass was not much greener on the other side. The board and especially The Third would never let that slide. AB followed the deal all the way through to the end and then backed out at the last minute to pursue the deal with InBev. In the end, InBev had a better offer on the table and it seemed that greed took over. Essentially, what mattered was the amount AB could gain per

Span Systems’ attorney sent the negotiation points to C-S and although C-S agreed that they were some faults from their side but were still concerned about the schedule slippage and the timeline that has to be met. Span Systems’ attorney suggest that instead of arguing contract clauses, which may be counter-productive in the long run,

Duke Energy, a power company based in North Carolina determined that the acquisition of a rival power company, Progress Energy, was vital to the future success of their organization. Duke’s board determined that Progress Energy was a strategically valuable asset and the purchase would enhance their company economically, as well as, increase shareholder value. Furthermore, the deal would enhance Duke’s nuclear power ambitions…Duke has applied for permission to build two reactors and Progress has proposed building two reactors. Neither company, without government loan guarantees, could complete the nuclear projects individually. All agreed and the deal was sealed…well almost.

If Span and C-S plan to resolve their issues, they will use interest-based negotiating.Contract EnforcementDuring interest-based negotiating, Span will express its intent to revitalize the current contract. To secure future contracts, this project needs to be put back on track so both companies can achieve mutual profitability. Achieve GoalsSpan must recognize its role in the negotiations process. It has a short- and long-term goal. The short-term goal is to achieve an amicable conclusion to the current contract. The long-term goal is securing future contracts. Control Customer ExpectationThe best way to achieve the long-term goal is to control customer expectation. Span could focus on the short-term goal and successfully negotiate the current contract by giving in on all concessions. But if it does that, over time there will be a drop in the perceived service quality and C-S high expectations will result in a widening service gap. Span needs to enforce some of the contract. If it doesn't stand firm on a few of the important issues, C-S expectations and perceptions of service quality will be drastically inaccurate. The next contract will be very difficult to enforce. C-S will get the indication it can demand whatever it wants and Span will concede.Current ContractSpan needs

Based on the case information, pressure appeared to be the dominant factor. Qwest was experiencing substantial pressure as a result of the competition. The regulatory

Flinder believed that FVC had alternatives to this deal. Rockheed-Marlin Corporation, a large defense contractor (or any of a number of others), might be induced to make an offer for Flinder Valves, though Flinder preferred RSE International Corporation as a merger partner. FVC and RSE might establish a joint venture of some sort, though Flinder suspected that joint ventures faced the same kinds of integration problems as did acquisitions; as a result, he thought joint ventures were an inferior alternative. FVC could move forward alone, but that would require raising large sums of new debt and equity to finance the rapid expansion of the firm’s “widening gyre” program. Flinder was concerned that he might lose voting control of the firm regardless. It seemed to him that doing a deal with a known and friendly partner today would prepare the way for an orderly transition for himself and the firm.

* The Client’s competitor’s key business advantage was actually based on long-term production contracts; in effect, the

CDER had seven different maintenance contracts which covered 98 percent of the copier fleet. These contracts ended at various times meaning CDER would have to produce funding in times of continuing resolution to cover a portion of the fleet’s maintenance cost. This is a challenge as it is difficult to request tens of thousands of dollars as emergency funds for this purpose. OAGS and I thought that a blanket purchase agreement would be a good idea to help CDER get one low price for copier maintenance. This meant the seven copier contracts would have to have co-terminus contract end dates. This is a challenge as it requires that OAGS, the administrative I Procurement approval chain, and I quickly produce and approve documents to extend contracts ranging from five months to three weeks and two days. I started working on the contract extension paperwork in January of 2016. I tracked the contract extension through CDER’s approval process. I worked with OAGS and the contracts were extended within a few months. These contracts being extended allowed the customers to continue to have great service for their machines continuing a seamless process in which customers could focus on the

The initial defense from warner should have come from the initial agreement, anticipating the Pfizer proposal and leaving no room to Pfizer to legal actions or hostile proposals. In my view, the standstill clause must have been reinforced by not allowing Pfizer any merge proposal even though, the third party proposals

Boeh and Beamish (2007, p.102) suggested that precedent acquisition is used to value a firm based on other similar acquisitions that have recently occurred. It directs firm to use the most appropriate valuation. Assessing the $9.4 billion bid for PacifiCorp can be defined as “fair”. Bruner, Eades and Schill(2010, p.13) mentioned that the timing of BH’s bid closely followed Duke Energy’s bid to acquire Cinergy for $9 billion. Compare their characteristics (Appendix II, table 5) PacifiCorp and Cinergy deal in the same industry and have similar amount of customers, capital structure and EBITDA. Therefore, it can conclude that they are comparable and the deal between Duke Energy and Cinergy can be used as a reference to value PacifiCorp.

Based on the analysis of the issues present between Flatrock and Tower, the action plan must resolve the following root causes: the lack of clarity in the contract, which led to Flatrock believing they were entitled to services they were not paying for, and the lack of transparency which caused Flatrock to overestimate Tower’s profit margins. Additionally, the disparity between what the two branches of Flatrock aim to achieve, and Clyne’s emotionally-driven leadership style are main sources of problems within the negotiation. If these issues can be sorted out during negotiations, Tower will be able to maintain Flatrock as a principle client.

Span needs to carefully select which items it needs to negotiate fiercely and which ones it needs to concede. There must be balance; Span has to successfully renegotiate the current contract without the perception of being weak.

·    Yield to principle but not to pressure: A collaborative negotiation quickly falls apart if the buying organization compromises on this guideline. Once the buying company yields to pressure from its sales opponents to focus solely on price, the positive atmosphere essential to collaborative negotiations quickly evaporates.