End Chapter Questions
9.4 – Business Ethics: Winkel vs. Family Health Care
FHC entered a written employee contract to provide certain benefits to Winkel. During the period of the contractual agreement, both parties entered into a modified oral agreement of the written contract. The agreement was that FHC would pay a higher salary and give a profit – share bonus. FHC gave Winkel the increase in salary a year later, but did not give in the profit-share. 1.
Does Winkel receive the profit sharing bonus? Yes! Because in the State that this contract is performed under, Winkel is entitled to the profit share bonus. The original written contract states nothing about the raise or profit-share. Unfortunately because FHC went into an oral modification of the written contract which is permitted in the State, FHC must hold to its oral obligation. 2.
Did Dr. Vranich of FHC act ethically in raising the defense that the contract was not in writing? No! Dr. Vranich did act ethically by owning up to one part of the oral modification in paying Winkel the higher salary. By executing one portion of the oral modification she maybe felt she did not have to execute the other portion. Dr. Vranich did not act ethically in raising this defense because an oral modification was made and partially executed which in the State that this occurred allows an executed oral agreement.
10.7 – Implied Terms
When considering the case of Cerdes vs. Wright, we have a situation where implied terms can be involved. What makes this case implied is because we are dealing with a modern contract that allows certain situations of the contract to be somewhat flexible. In this case, Cerdes is suing Wright for breach of contract. Cerdes did not finish the job in enough time that was suitable for Wright. Therefore Wright proceeded to hire other service to complete the job. Due to the fact that time was the purpose of the change in contractors, implied terms can...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document