The controversial situation of ceasing the business relationships with Don Willetts can be discussed with references to the principles of business ethics and contract law. There was no any revealed agreement to regulate the business relationships between the supplier and Don till the conversation about ceasing the relationships (O’Sullivan, Smith, & Esposito, 2012, p. 54). Initially, the relationships between the supplier and Don were not regulated, and the supplier relied only on Don’s fairness. However, Don did not follow the principles of business ethics and made the supplier wait to pay for the products. It is also important to note that Dan also violated the spiritual and moral norms because of acting in an unjust manner in relation to the supplier. While analyzing the nature of relationships between the supplier and Don from the ethical perspective, it is necessary to support the cessation of doing business with Don. Nevertheless, the main reason to stop working with Don is his violation of the contract law.
Having influenced the supplier’s 17-year-old son to sign the contract, Don made the young boy sign the voidable contract, which can be easily disaffirmed while following the regulations associated with the principle of the minor’s capacity. The supplier’s 17-year-old son can choose to disaffirm the contract and rescind it in a written form as the child (Beatty & Samuelson, 2011, p. 112). As a result, the contract will be breached legally, and the supplier can defend the company from the effect of Don’s complaints.
In spite of the fact that the supplier has all the rights to breach the contract while focusing on the minor’s capacity principle, it is also necessary to explain the possible effects of Don’s complaints and actions against the supplier’s company. On the one hand, Don can state that the signed contract should be discussed in the context of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing (Meiners, Ringleb, & Edwards, 2014, p. 21). On the other hand, both the parties should demonstrate fairness and loyalty and not have a conflict of interests (Beatty & Samuelson, 2011, p. 118; Charman, 2013, 18). Don’s actions can be discussed in the court, according to this principle also, and there is much evidence to state that Don was not fair and consistent in his relationships with the supplier.
The next important detail to discuss in the case in order to prevent seeking remedies is the idea of fraud in relation to the contract law. From this point, Don’s actions associated with concealing the fact of signing the contract can be discussed as a fraud in the execution of a contract (Mann & Roberts, 2012, p. 48; Schwenzer, Hachem, & Kee, 2012, p. 56). The purpose of Don’s activities is to obtain more money from the supplier while concealing the points of the agreement and referring illegally to the idea of the minor’s capacity.
Thus, there are many weaknesses in the execution of a contract that should be taken into consideration while discussing the conflict of interests between the supplier and Don. While deciding on the future of business relationships, the supplier should choose to breach the contract because Don violated many norms associated with principles of the contract law from the legal perspective and many ethical standards from the point of morality and spirituality.
References
Beatty, J., & Samuelson, S. (2011). Cengage advantage books: Essentials of business law. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Charman, M. (2013). Contract law. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mann, R., & Roberts, B. (2012). Essentials of business law and the legal environment. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
Meiners, R., Ringleb, A., & Edwards, F. (2014). The legal environment of business. New York, NY: Cengage Learning.
O’Sullivan, P., Smith, M., & Esposito, M. (2012). Business ethics: A critical approach – integrating ethics across the business world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Schwenzer, I., Hachem, P., & Kee, C. (2012). Global sales and contract law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.