Comment to my 4 classmates

1. classamte : 1. The basic argument of the court was the existence and acceptance of the arbitration clause hidden within the customer agreement and warranty brochure as a contract. The most compelling argument to me was that warranty brochures don't equate to contracts. The court highlights how California law doesn't accept silence or inaction as acceptance. Norcia didn't agree to a contract with Samsung for simply receiving a brochure from Verizon.

I agree with the court's holding. Buying something from Verizon, doesn't mean you can't sue Samsung. Allowing companies to enforce "contracts" by putting a brochure, flyer, or other paperwork in a box without informing the customers of what they entail would set a dangerous precedent. Consumers wouldn't have any protections from companies for simply opening a box with 100+ pages of information. No consumer would reasonably agree to contracts relieving consumers of their legal protections via court for simply purchasing everyday products, services, or technology.

If I was Samsung, I'd make the arbitration clause a separate agreement consumers had to read, acknowledge, and sign prior to receiving their products. I would also ensure retailers selling my product include the arbitration agreement, explain it to consumers, and ensure its simple enough for a reasonable person to understand. I wouldn't allow it to be a 100+ page brochure hidden within a box.

I think arbitration agreements can benefit both parties in SCM as its cheaper and faster than litigation. This is especially important as we look at global supply chains that span the world. It would be difficult for companies to litigate and go through court as the first issue would be deciding what country's court both parties would fall under. There would also be the issue of deciding what laws apply. Another pro would be confidentiality as litigation would require discovery that could possibly reveal trade secrets like proprietary pricing/knowledge.

Cons of arbitration is the loss of accountability for companies that break laws. Arbitration would relieve companies of public scrutiny and class action lawsuits, which are necessary when cases need it. Another con is the fact arbitration can have significant power imbalance between corporations. Bigger firms would be able to impose stricter arbitration terms on smaller suppliers since larger corporations would have more leverage and ability negotiate costs or select arbitrator

2: Classmate : What was the basic argument of the court and what were the most compelling arguments to you?

Samsung tried to argue that because the arbitration agreement was inside the phone's box and Norcia is bound to comply with it. The court disagreed, saying a customer has no duty to object to rules they never actually agreed to. Just because that the customer doesn't say "no" doesn't mean they've said "yes." Companies can't hide big rules in a box and then act like the customer agreed. Since Samsung wrote the contract, it's their job to prove the customer really agreed. It's not fair to assume agreement from the consumer. If Samsung's argument worked, any company could sneak in rules taking away people's rights, and customers would lose their chance to sue without even knowing it. The court's decision makes sense because it is only fair that companies need clear permission before binding customers to something as important as arbitration.

1. Do you think the court made the correct holding?

Yes the court made the correct holding by saying that just putting a clause in the phone box is not enough. Narcia was not aware of the clause and also it cannot be forced on to it unless he clearly agrees to it. Arbitration waives a person's right to go to court, which is a big deal. If Samsung wanted Norcia to give up that right, they had to get clear agreement, not just assume silence meant consenting to it. The court correctly stuck to the fundamental rule that you can't bind someone without actual consent.

Classmate 3 :

Case Option 1

Forecasting & effective planning should never be underestimated in ensuring the business's success and having what is necessary to satisfy the customers. Collaborative forecasting efforts can properly position a company to ensure that the product is available on shelves when customers need the item, decrease the need for extra unnecessary inventory, increase forecasting accuracy to strengthen business relationships, and increase sales and profitability. Kraft & Asda sought to achieve this by collaborative forecasting, but there was a mismatch. Kraft's forecast is different from Asda's, due to different timelines being used & the assumptions being made, forecasting methods, and data being used. Trust is essential in collaborative forecasting, and this took a serious hit when the outcomes did not align. Graham can rebuild by accepting the discrepancies, becoming more transparent with their forecasting, and creating contingency plans for unexpected demand. When forecasts diverge, the lessons for managing relationships between retailers and suppliers are to recognize, acknowledge, and accept that people can make mistakes, and track & communicate forecast performance to improve and build trust over time.

Classmate 4 :

Reply from ENMA ORTIZ-SANCHEZ

Case Option 1: A Crisis of Confidence Collaborative Forecasts Don't Match (Kraft & Asda)

• Why might Kraft's forecast differ so significantly from Asda's, despite shared planning?

The deviation in forecasts between Kraft and Asdas stems from different perspectives and priorities. Kraft built its forecast on historical demand patterns, efficiency goals, and the desire to avoid overstocking, which could lead to excess inventory and waste. Their models likely emphasized statistical forecasting and trend analysis, which showed more stable consumption. On the other hand, Asda was planning a major buy-one-get-one-free promotion, anticipating a significant surge in demand. Promotions in the UK coffee market were frequent and powerful, with drivers often experiencing demands that were distorting normal patterns. Asda's forecast was therefore demand-driven and heavily influenced by short-term promotional expectations, while Kraft's was supply-driven and focused on long-term efficiency. These differences highlight how variations in promotional strategy compared to baseline forecasting can result in significant gaps, even within a collaborative framework like CPFR.