The Contract And The Number Of Renewals

SmithStearn Yachts Inc., made a contract with Gyrographic Communications Inc., where Gyrographic would provide advertising, marketing, and promotional services to SmithStearn. SmithStearn sues Gyrographic for breaching their contract. Gyrographic went on to say that the contract was purportedly made with SmithStearn Yacht., LLC, a Limited liability corporation and not with SmithStearn Yachts, Inc.

Gina Blair represented a competitive-cooperative negotiation strategy which represented a middle ground, both combined in a style which was open minded but assertive. Gina had scheduled the telephone meeting between herself and Daniel Trent; therefore she had more knowledge about what was going to be discussed. As she had initiated the negotiation she had prepared well for the issues concerning her clients. She presented her negotiation in a logical structure, showing that she had prepared all the areas of concern which she intended to address. Her preparation allowed her to identify and prioritise her client’s concerns. She avoided small talk and was very direct, her approach was assertive and she projected confidence. She had a clear understanding of the issues which were of concern to her clients and had proposed

At the same time, I also realized that the negotiation partners are not always having the conflict interests during the negotiation. In this case, for some of the issues, we actually have the same goals. So baring this in mind, in the future negotiation case, I would first seek the common goals for both of us first to create a win-win situation.

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

There were three primary changes that I would make if given the opportunity to redo this negotiation. First, I would more immediately suggest that a contingent contract be used to address the quality of product vs. long-term contract debate. In hindsight, it could have been very efficient to propose an agreement that allowed for Rawmat’s longer term deal while also recognizing Myti-Pet’s desire for higher quality. By not initially considering a contingency contract, our group fell into the trap discussed in Bazerman and Gillespie (1999). We simply did not allow ourselves to consider a contingency contract, and when the idea was first proposed we initially felt uncomfortable with the concept. In hindsight, this reaction was highly unproductive.

What surprised me the most about our behavior was how well we collaborated. At the beginning of the negotiation, I usually spend a bit of time trying to assess how the other party will negotiate (compete, collaborate, or subordinate). From the beginning of the negotiation, it was very clear that Texoil valued our relationship, was very interested in me coming back to work for them, was concerned about my wife, and was interested in my future plans. This created the right tone for collaborating. This created a basis of trust and openness, which led to creative options, which would not have been possible if one party decided to negotiate competitively. Both parties did a good job of asking questions to delve at the underlying interests, which allowed for give and take, and enabled each side to put forth proposals which could be openly considered. If the tone of the negotiation had been different, I think the Negotiator’s Dilemma might have prevented information from coming out and prevented interests to surface, and thus prevented creative solutions.

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

After having established my position over the seller, making new propositions was a lot easier. Also, she had realized that not reaching an agreement with me meant that she could not pursue her life’s dream, whereas reaching an agreement with me made it possible for even if it meant having to delay for a few months. Adopting a stronger position and

Section 1, titled terms lists the terms of the contract. The terms of the agreement must be definite and certain. All material terms must be included. The material terms allow a court to determine what the damages are in the event that one of the parties breach the terms of the contract. Section 1, of Exhibit D: Commercial Lease Agreement list the date the lease starts and the date the lease ends. It then lists the damages that the tenant may take if the landlord is not able to provide the leased premises in a timely manner. The section then goes on to state the terms of the renewal process. The process of renewing the lease is set with a written notice of 90 days. This process is definite and certain. The renewal provision then states that the terms shall be at the rental listed in the below sections of the agreement and upon the same covenants, conditions and provisions as contained in the lease agreement. Both the terms listed to lease the premises and to renew the contract is definite and certain and it lists the material terms.

The negotiation approach I used begin with me first creating a friendly environment with Mr. Hardline (Counsel for ELM) then I pinpointed the actions my office was willing to bring light to such as breach of contract, age discrimination, wrongful termination, failure for EMC to stick to Employee Relations Law, and a comment regarding the IRS “smelling the blood.” After this point, and having described both sides position, I let Mr. Hardline initiate the first pension offer, which he started at $50,000. I then said my client was ready to go to court and bring forward the above mentioned claims to any appropriate government agency for thorough review. Furthermore, I mentioned to Mr. Hardline my client had requested I bring a lawsuit forward for $1,000,000 if he didn’t receive a fair offer. At this point it was already 3:10 p.m. and we were rushed to make it back to class in time, so I convinced the opposing party we should settle rather than come back empty handed, and so, he upped his offer to $100,000. By this time, I had secured a generous pension, scored way above what my client was satisfied with receiving in terms of his pension, so yes, I would say I was successful. Ii. What I learned from this negotiation was that either my partner didn’t do his readings in advance or was playing me like a fool because I had to explain the whole story to the guy, which obviously took most of our time that we could

Some of the things that my partner was incredibly good at, was creating and claiming value, and anchoring. Right from the start of the negotiation she began to create value by mentioning that her project would normally take a year to finish, and continued to do so across the entire negotiation. She began by anchoring at her Aspiration Point, which was ten weeks. I made the mistake of not re-anchoring correctly. After she did this, I mistakenly said I would allow her two weeks to finish her project, when I should have said something like "unfortunately we will have to appoint someone else to your project" to start off. I think the reason I made this mistake was because I was trying too hard to maintain a relationship and I gave into allowing her to finish her project and this led me to become somewhat of a soft-bargainer.

giving real number estimates of how much revenue could be brought in or saved. She

I assumed this was because Jamie disclosed the details of the offer I made her to Jack. Therefore, Jack was willing to accept less, in order to remain competitive with my offer. Because of the concept of scarcity caused by many people wanting the same thing (Bargaining for Advantage, pg. 179), I foresaw this happening, so when I reentered the negotiation, I asked to speak privately with Jack. Knowing that Jack felt pressured to drop his portion with Jamie because of me previous offer, I again tried to mention to him how I thought a three-way deal where funding was split equally and I conceded $10,000 of my share was a fair deal. I was hoping he would side with me when we reentered the negotiation because he would now understand the spiral effect that exists in this negotiation. However, because I knew I couldn’t rely on this I also mentioned the possibility that we could come to an agreement and I could better Jamie’s offer. I believe we reached a tentative agreement where I would receive $70,000 and he would receive $230,000. Again, I wish I could have persuade him to agree right then and there, but it seemed that he wanted to rejoin Jamie to further discuss the options. When all three of us we involved yet again, Jack had mentioned openly how it would be more beneficial to have an agreement with me, and this really caused an unexpected, but

Summary of My negotiation from the Opera-case and how I think it was different from other cases

* This negotiation was an important one from a career point of view as it involves a salary negotiation for an existing job. I have never been in a situation where I have actually negotiated a salary for a person working under me, so it was a good experience for me. I was playing the role of Pat Lynch, V.P. of marketing for Rapid Leatherhead Goods Company. There are 4 main product lines which comprise the major portion of the company’s online sales. A new director for marketing was hired two years ago for mail order sales. He has done a good job with three lines, but the fourth line, which was a problem even before he joined, is still a problem and there has not been an increase in sales for that product. It is the company’s