Law1000 Business Law Of Main Assessment Answers

Read “Ways of thinking about our values”and “Giving Voice to Values: A brief introduction”which are available on the Moodle site for this course.

Place yourself in the position of the person in your assigned scenario: what should you say, to whom, when and how?

In order to answer these questions consider the following:

• What are the main arguments you are trying to counter? That is, what are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address?
• What is at stake for the key parties (including those who disagree with you)?
• What levers/arguments could you use to influence those with whom you disagree?
• What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the arguments be made? When and in what context?

Answer

Main Dilemma in the scenario

1. In this case, the main problem is the wastage of money and time of the common people through the contractual relation with Regional Planning Commission (RPC).
2. Tina was getting herself involved in another political complexity which she always wanted to be away from.
3. The contractual relationship between Wendell and RPC would ultimately cease the procedure of selling the storage area to the going to be casino developer.
4. Committing the above procedure could break the trust and belief which had built over the time in Wendell’s mind for her.

Reasons and Rationalizations

The reasons behind the dilemmas were that, the contract with RPC would lower the speed of purchasing the storage area of the going to be casino developer. Tina also felt that there was a hidden motive behind causing such a delay in the making of the casino. This in turn would also cause delay to the selling of the land of County (Singer, 2018).

What’s at stake for the key parties

At this point, the good relationship between Wendell and Tina would be at stake as Tina would secretly working against the orders of Wendell. The faith which she had built in his mind would shatter. Tina was enjoying her work and was becoming successful gradually. But she would lose her position and could even be suspended from her job. Lastly, the hard earned and valuable money of the common people would be wasted.

Arguments to those who disagree

To those who have disagreement, having a look at the past intentions and works of the Regional Planning Commission should be looked into. The agreement with Hamilton County Commission would cause hindrance and delay in their targets undoubtedly. The reuse planning of RPc would not be suitable with the county lands (Mann & Roberts,  2011).

Powerful and Rational response

It is moral duty of Tina to prohibit the indiscriminate purchase of money of the common people. She should do it tactfully by providing Wendell with the required and the adequate evidences. In this way, her job would be secured and her motives could be established. She should show Wendell the past events which RPC has committed. In this way, the confidence would be intact.

References 

Mann, R. A., & Roberts, B. S. (2011). Smith and Roberson’s business law. London, UK: Cengage Learning.

Singer, L. (2018). Settling disputes: Conflict resolution in business, families, and the legal system. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge.