$.$ Carefully read the three cases below:

Part I: Three Cases

Here are three cases from actual business practices

Case $1.$ Foreign agents and governments not dealing squarely

Community Uplift Ministries partnered with a Kenyan Christian organization for a

nonprofit program in Kenya. Following five years of collaborative work, the Kenyan

"partner" decided to take over the program and all its assets, with the attitude $"$It is a good

thing to steal from the West. They owe us$."$ Once program support was cut off, the

program quickly collapsed. The result was the failure of seven years development work,

millions of dollars lost and $100,000$ people defrauded and discouraged. The Kenyan

government was asked to intervene on behalf of the donors. The response from the

Kenyan government to this was "tough luck." Because John participated with a venture

that claimed to be a Christian ministry, the name of Jesus was sullied. It was said, $$If this

is what Christians are like, we want no part.$$

Case $2.$ Contracts

CoorsTek had as their largest customer a company that wanted them to sign a global

supply agreement. CoorsTek would not sign because they could see there were provisions

in the contract that they would not be able to fulfill. The customer maintained, "Well, just

sign it$,$ because no one cares what it says, and we won't enforce the contract anyway."

The customer threatened to replace CoorsTek as a supplier if they would not sign the

agreement. $($And the customer had backing in his experience dealing with other

companies. All the competitors of CoorsTek were willing to sign.$)$ Five to six years time

and considerable back$-$and$-$forth negotiation was necessary before a contract was

produced that CoorsTek could enter into, fully prepared to live by its terms.

John Coors reflects more broadly:

We often compete with companies that promise customers what cannot be

delivered, either by selling what they cannot make, or pricing in such a way as

knowingly to lose money to get the business and eliminate the competition. After

eliminating the competition they plan on raising prices and more than recouping

their loss. This is a very typical business practice out of Asia $($Japan and China$),$

although the Japanese seem to be improving in this area. CoorsTek will normally

lose this business rather than chase it$,$ but at a significant loss. More often than

not, our customers will return, because they know $($or learn$)$ they can trust us$,$ but

there is significant damage done to both parties. The $$professional buyers$$ at

large companies encourage these kind of tactics from suppliers because they are

rewarded based on the price they pay for a part, not on the value a part provides.

That is one of the reasons a one$-$dollar part can be responsible for the failure of a

multimillion dollar piece of equipment

Case $3.$ Purchase agreements and paying suppliers

Standard agreements specify that the customer receiving goods must pay his supplier

Contracts and Destructive Effects $3$

within a certain period, typically $30$ days. Customers unilaterally extend the length of the

period and delay payment, or sometimes do not pay at all or only after lengthy

negotiations. Oftentimes they withhold payment until after the quarter or the year ends,

allowing them to show to public markets artificially inflated cash balances. These

practices get especially tested when times get harder. In short, actual practice of

customers renders the contractual terms $(30$ days$)$ meaningless.

Meanwhile the supplier suffers. The supplier has spent money for materials, labor,

plant maintenance, and so on$.$ He is being charged for the capital invested during the

whole time while his customers are delaying payment. The charge comes either in the

form of interest on a loan, or the unavailability of the expected money to use for further

investment. If the delay is severe, and money does not come in return for what he has

supplied, he can even be forced into bankruptcy.

$2.$ Write a $3-5$ page paper and address the following within the text of the paper:

$3.$ Summarize the article$$s main points.

Compare the responses to the three business practice cases in the article to at least two other moral philosophies in the following list:

$-$Egoism

$-$Relativism

$-$Utilitarian

$-$Social contract

$-$Agency

$-$Virtue Ethics

$-$Hinduism

$-$Buddhism

$-$Confucianism

$-$Islam

$4.$ Finally, provide your own analysis of the article and the view of contracts and how this affects your own daily work.