The leading cause of conflict in the Dietz v. Perez dispute is the failure of Perez to pay Dietz Development LLC for the services contracted. On the one hand, Perez argued that the company did not complete the work agreed on but left him with a damaged house and extra costs for re-accomplishing the job. On the other hand, Dietz argued that they had completed the work and demanded payment, leading to a conflict between Dietz Development LLC and Perez. There was a contract between the two parties since they agreed that Dietz would undertake the construction activities specified and receive the agreed amount of money from Perez. However, the contract was breached when the company failed to comply with the expected standards of work.
The best method of approach for Dietz would be re-assessing the work completed to ascertain whether it measured up to the standards expected by Perez. Negotiation would prove more effective than taking the case to court. Since Dietz was Perez’s former classmate, they would have easily obtained a solution. Dietz did not win his case against Perez because he failed to specify and prove the terms of the case required in the bill of particulars. He would have filed the bill to establish that he did the work as agreed, but he failed and lost the case.
Perez’s move of posting defamatory remarks on online sites was wrong. Although a disagreement arose between the two parties, it should not have been dragged to the public. Perez’s action put the company in a difficult position since they would need to take extra measures to convince potential clients of the quality of their services (Singer, 2018). Instead of going online, Perez should have approached Dietz personally and demanded re-accomplishment of the work or waited for the court’s ruling.
Following Perez’s post on Yelp.com and Angieslist.com, Dietz had reason to sue him for defamation. Dietz had a right to sue Perez because those remarks would hurt his company’s future business (Raymond, 2015). Since those remarks would reduce Dietz’s chances of obtaining contracts in the future, he had the right to demand monetary compensation and an injunction remedy. Although the court initially ruled in Dietz’s favor regarding the defamatory comments, there are better avenues the two parties would have used to find a solution. Dietz would have withdrawn the case and asked Perez to withdraw the statements and possibly make a positive comment about him on the same online sites. This step would have rejuvenated their friendship and restored trust in the public regarding Dietz’s services.
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court of Virginia issued its final ruling reversing the injunction. The court’s decision was based on the injunction’s failure to specify the duration and its restraining impact on Perez. Since Perez had withdrawn the remarks, such an injunction would limit her freedom of speech and expression in the future (Levy, 2013). Failing to specify the term of the application also made the injunction invalid.
In conclusion, there are several lessons learned from this case in relation to business and personal relationships. The main takeaway is that business success requires trust and accountability. Clients expect their requirements to be met as this reinforces their confidence in companies. Although disagreements may arise in business, negotiation should be adopted rather than taking the case to court. Lastly, personal issues should not be taken to the public because it is unethical and hurts both parties.
References
Levy, P. A. (2013). Virginia Supreme Court reverses preliminary injunction against yelp review. CL&P Blog.
Raymond, R. (2015). When word-of-mouth goes online: evaluating the characteristics and effects of Ewom communication. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8(05), 499-508.
Singer, L. R. (2018). Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system. Routledge.