Green Coffee Case Study

Endrit Kolici

Final Exam---BLE 214-BE Fall 2013

You own a small business called Green Coffee, a small coffee shop in Boston.  Your coffee supplier, Java Distributors, is required under a written contract with you to deliver 500 pounds of coffee per week to the shop.  The deliveries are to be made each Monday morning.  

1. Java Distributors might have breached the contract; however precipitating in wrongful decisions can harm my business as well. I have these possible options to undertake:

1. Forgive Java Distributors, hoping it is not going to happen again in future. I will accept the coffee to be delivered Tuesday afternoon, and I will pay them the full amount. Every company has problems from time to time. Suppliers can experience temporary difficulties as a result of implementing a new product line, shipping procedure or training program, and we will take this case as an excused tardiness.
2. I will accept the coffee to be delivered on Tuesday afternoon, but I will buy from another supplier coffee for Monday, and Tuesday morning (even with a different price). I will then ask Java Distributors to compensate me for the coffee of those two days.
3. I will accept the coffee to be delivered on Tuesday afternoon, but I will ask for compensation for all the revenue I get usually on Monday and Tuesday.
4. I will accept the coffee to be delivered on Tuesday afternoon, but I will ask Java Distributors to pay me back in form of rebate, all the revenue I lost I those two days, plus a penalty because I risk now to lose a few customers that did not get the coffee on Monday and Tuesday.
5. I will give to Java Distributors the only option to bring the coffee no later than xx:xxAM of Monday morning, otherwise I will legally enforce the contract to get the damages. I gear my business to this date, so it is of the utmost importance that this delivery date is in fact met.
6. I will start looking for other suppliers. A company that is not reliable, it is not serious in business.

A fair and a logical decision is either 3 or 4. This depends on the time that he were doing business together, the price that I get the coffee from them compared to others, the reliability that I had on this supplier in past occasions.

1. The decision will be affected by two major reasoning. Firstly, as a coffee shop-owner, I want to make sure that every decision will maximize my profits. So I want to buy furniture that last longer.  Also, I want to create a cozy, and also safe place for my customers. Having a unique style of furniture that had won several awards is tempting, but are they safe? In a coffee shop, incidents happen a lot. Slip and falls are the most common, since people are not always careful with their coffee and might spill them on the floor. If an accident happens, my wish as the store-owner, is to be less of damage as possible, because it exist a large possibility that I will be liable for the damage. Under premises liability property owners are liable for accidents and injuries that occur on that property. In order to win a negligence case, the plaintiff(a customer) must establish the following four elements of negligence:  First, the defendant(store-owner) owed a duty or standard of care to the plaintiff, consistent with the actions of a “reasonable person” in the same or a similar situation; second, the defendant breached the duty or standard of care owed to the plaintiff, in the sense that the defendant failed to act like a “reasonable person;” third, the defendant’s conduct caused plaintiff harm; and fourth, the plaintiff suffered compensable damages as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Not only a glass top of the table breaks easily, needing to be replaced, but also it might harm someone. Stainless steel, on the other hand, are unbreakable, which means that will be used longer, and will be safer.
2. The law holds employers responsible for wrongful acts, including negligent driving, when they are committed by an employee while the employee is performing job duties. In this case the employee caused the injury driving back from a delivery dispatch, which means was performing his job. Even though he failed to make a stop sign and ran over the man, employer is still liable. The purpose of this rule is to hold employers responsible for the costs of doing business, including the costs of employee carelessness or misconduct. If the injury caused by the employee is simply one of the risks of the business, as it is in this case, the employer will have to bear the responsibility. If Joe (the driver) would cause the accident when was not performing a job duty, even if it was with the work’s car, the employer would not be liable. But this was not the case. In our case, we are liable of Joe’s accident, and we might have to pay for medical expenses, lost wage, pain and suffering, and legal fees.

1. A non-disclosure agreement is an agreement between two parties which agree to not disclose information disclosed in the agreement (the secret blend of the coffee). Elements required for contract formation, except the agreement (represented by a valid offer and a valid acceptance), are mutual consideration (meaning that both parties must give value in order to support the enforceability of the agreement,) lawful purpose and subject matter, and legal capacity (which is the ability to understand the terms and nature of the contract; as well as the legal ability to enter into a binding contract. Individuals who have only limited capacity to contract include minors. Therefore, contracts with minors are voidable. Disaffirmance, which refers to the minor’s right, until a reasonable time after reaching age of majority, to avoid his or her contractual obligations. Upon the disaffirmance by a minor of his contract, the contract is annulled on both sides, which means the non-disclosure clause cannot be enforced. However, if the employee has reached the adult age, the contract is valid and enforceable and we can imply ratification. In this case, I would try to resolve it out of court, entering in a conversation with the competitor and asking for compensation. If it does not work, then I will sue the competitor and the ex-employee for damage that has been made and lose of authenticity from the revealing of trade secret.

1. The most important law covering racial discrimination on the job is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law applies to all private, federal, state, and local employers. The justifications need to be based upon the candidate’s skills, education, and years of experience. We have to be specific when describing why the candidates were or were not selected.  General terms like "limited", "did not have proficiency", "sufficient", "did not demonstrate", should be followed up with specific examples. The law prohibits discriminating regarding race, ethnic origin, gender, or religion. Racial discrimination is the practice of letting a person's race or skin color unfairly become a factor when deciding who receives a job, promotion, or other employment benefit. It most often affects minority individuals who feel they have been unfairly discriminated against in favor of a white individual. We risk of being accused of racial discrimination by the three African-American women, or by Mexican-American man, if we choose the white man. We also risk of being accused of gender discrimination if we choose one of the two men, instead of the women. Affirmative action is a controversial policy intended to counteract racial discrimination. Affirmative action actively promotes the interest of minorities over the white majority in order to correct past discrimination. One effect of affirmative action has been an increase in "reverse discrimination" lawsuits, in which nonminority workers allege that they have been discriminated against. White people claim that, if it is unfair to not hire a qualified worker just because he or she is a minority, then it should be equally unfair to not hire a qualified worker just because he or she is white. White employees have argued that, even though they have higher qualifications, experience, and skill, they are being passed over for jobs in favor of less-qualified candidates who are minorities. In this tough situation, including a test would be a smart option of hiring process. Candidates have to take a test, in which their knowledge are demonstrated. The best talent then would get the job.