Shannon Bakke contracted with Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc., to install a shower door in a bathroom in Bakke’s home. Magi-Touch arranged to have the work done by VA Solutions, LLC, an independent contractor. The shower door imploded, damaging the bathroom. Bakke filed a suit in a North Dakota state court against Magi-Touch. She claimed that the installation was improper and a breach of contract. The court issued a judgment in Magi-Touch’s favor, concluding that the company was not liable for the acts of its independent contractor. On this point, the North Dakota Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case. “The hiring of an independent contractor does not relieve Magi-Touch from the performance of its obligations under the contract it had with Bakke[, and] the delegation of Magi-Touch’s obligation to provide labor to VA Solutions does not preclude a cause of action against Magi-Touch for a breach of the contract.” [Bakke v. Magi-Touch Carpet One Floor & Home, Inc., 2018 ND 273, 920 N.W.2d 726 (2018)] (See Assignments and Delegations.)

(a) Use the IIDDR approach to consider the ethics of Magi- Touch’s decision to oppose Bakke instead of resolving her dispute. 

(b) Suppose that Magi-Touch had replaced the imploded shower door and repaired the bathroom but had refused to repaint the bathroom door. From an ethical perspective, what argument might support such a position? Discuss.