Offer:

An offer is a statement of the terms which the client (the offeror) is prepared to be
contractually bound and;
The offer must be complete must be complete, specific and capable of being accepted. It must
include the fundamental terms of the agreement with the intention that no further negotiations
are to take place and;
Client offer contractor the work and therefore the contractor must carry out the work under
the clients terms and conditions. It is possible to make a conditional offer.
The effect of this is that an offer cannot be accepted if the condition has not been satisfied.
For example the client requires the contractor to have a specific tool or machine before an
offer can be made.
The offer only comes into existence after the client reviews the tenders handed in by the
contractors and accept the offer or;
An offer on the other hand is when the client offers the job to one contractor without
advertising the job or having contractors to submit in the tender.

Invitation to Treat:

An invitation to treat is different to an offer as it only invites the party to make an offer and it
is not intended to be binding and;
The contractors are invited to bid on the job, by calculating the total work cost and to have the
tenders submitted in a specified time and;
The main difference between this situation and an auction is that person submitted the tender,
does so in ignorance of others bids because the final decision is up to the client, and;
Making an invitation to treat, rather than an offer, protects the client from finding him/her self
agreed into a contract he/she cannot fulfill. Instead the client can refuse the contractors offer
for many different reasons and;
This can be very important protection for the client making the offer if the advertisement for
the job offers at long distance: for example, through the internet or newspaper. Always ensure
that any website, advertisement etc make it clear that it is only an invitation to treat, not an
offer and;
An invitation to treat is when a client invites contractors to make him/her an offer. For
example, when the client advertises a job on internet or newspaper, it is usually an invitation
to treat rather than an offer.

A Contract of service vs A contract for services

The law makes a distinction between a contract of service and a contract for service.
Basically, a contract of service applies to an employee-employer relationship, while a contract
for service applies in the case of an independent sub-contractor.

A contract of service is an agreement where one person agrees to employ another as an

employee and the other agrees to serve his employer as an employee. Under a contract of
service, the employer must contribute to CPF and provide relevant statutory benefits such as
annual leave, sick leave etc for his employees.

A contract for services is an agreement where a person is engaged as an independent

contractor, such as a self-employed person or vendor engaged for a fee to carry out an
assignment or a project for the company. Under such a work arrangement, there is no
employer-employee relationship, and the employee is not covered by the Employment Act.

Of service or For services

Of
Employer-Employee relationship
Usually a continuous relationship
A duty of care owed to employees, as the
employer
The employer is generally liable for the
vicarious acts of employees
Protective legislation applies to contract
Wages/Salary payment method
Subject of contract is to carry on continuous
work

For
Employer-Independent Contractor
relationship
A relationship organized around the
completion of a once-off piece of work
A duty of care, arising from occupiers
liability
The employer is generally not liable for the
vicarious acts of independent contractors
In general, protective legislation does not
apply
Various methods of payment, including lump
sum per job
Subject of contract is once-off job

Ethics From Islamic Perspective

Ethics definition is as the set of moral principles that refers to the rightness or wrongness of
the decisions and behaviors of individuals and the organization of which they a part.
In general, it can be defined as the system of rules governing the ordering of values. It is a
normative field because it prescribes what one should do or abstain from doing.
Within an Islamic context, the term most closely related to ethics in Quran is khuluq.

The Prophets general advice to all people was:

What is lawful is clear and what is unlawful is clear, but between them are certain doubtful
things which many people do not recognize. He who guards against the doubtful things keeps
his religions and his honor blameless, but he who falls into doubtful things falls into what is
unlawful, just as a shepherd who pastures his flocks around a sanctuary will soon pasture
them in it. Every king has a sanctuary, and Gods sanctuary is the things he had declared
unlawful (Al-Bukhari)

We are as Muslim: we have to remain ethical standards, not only in business but also
in all aspects of life. Both business and ethics are interrelated. There is a reference to
this point in the Quran: For you in the Messenger of Allah is a fine example to follow
(Al-Azhab 33:21)

Key Parameters of the Islamic Ethical System

Action and decisions are judged to be ethical depending on the intention of the
individual. Allah is the Omniscient and knows our intention completely & perfectly.
Good intentions followed by good actions are considered as act of worship. Halal
(good) intention does not make haram (bad) actions halal.

Good Ethics in Quran

The Quran uses many terms to describe the concepts of goodness or good behaviour:
- Khayr (goodness);
- Birr (righteousness);
- Qist (equity);
- adl (equilibrium & justice);
- Haqq (truth & right);
- Maaruf (good and right doing);
- Taqwa (piety).

Islam uses an open system approach to ethics, not a closed, self oriented system. Egoism
has no place in Islam.
Islam encourages humankind to experience active participation in this life. By behaving
ethically, Muslims prove their worth to Allah.
The Islamic ethical system is part of the Islamic view of life & therefore complete.
There is internal consistency, adl, equilibrium, within an individuals code of conduct

Islamic Ethical Philosophy

1) Unity; Related to concept of Tawhid and is the political, economic, social & religious
aspects of mans life from a homogeneous whole.
- Vertical dimension of Islam
- Muslim will obey & observe Gods law; no Muslim should discriminate against
employees, suppliers, buyers, stakeholders on the basis of race, colour, sex or
religion.
- Muslim cannot do unethical practice for he has Allah to fear & love.
2) Equilibrium; Related to the concept of adl; a sense of balance of the various aspects of
mans life.
- Horizontal dimension of Islam
- To produce best social order
- The need to maintain a sense of balance and equilibrium between those who have& who
have not.
- Allah stresses the importance of giving and condemns the practice of conspicuous
consumptions.
- This applies in business as well ; And give full measure whenever you measure and weigh
with a balance that is true; This will be (for your own) good , and best in the end.; (17;35)
3) Free will; to a certain degree, man is given his free will to steer his own life as Allahs
vicegerent on earth.
- Man has ability to think, from judgments, adopt course of life he wished & has freedom to
make contract to honours or break it.
- But, Allah tells; O you who have attained to faith! Be true to your covenant! (5:1)
i.e. Be true to your contracts and commitments
4) Responsibility: man needs to be accountable for his conduct.
- Unlimited freedom is at absurd since it implies no responsibility and accountability.
- Allah stresses the concept of moral responsibility;
that he who does evil shall be requited for it, and shall find none
to protect him from God,who does of good deed and is a believer,
shall enter paradise(4:123-124)
- People are not responsible if they are not reach the age of puberty, insane or acting during
sleep.
5) Benevolence: Ihsan ( kindness) to others is an act that benefits person other than those from
whom the act proceed without any obligations
According to Ghazali , 6 kinds of benevolence:
- If a person needs a thing, one should give him;
- If a man purchases everything from a poor person, it is graceful for him to suffer a loss
by paying more;
- in releasing ones loan, give the debtor more time to pay and make reduction;
- it is proper for a person who purchases goods to be permitted to returns the goods;
- it is graceful for a debtor to pay debt without being ask to do so;
- When selling things on credit, cannot press for payment when people cannot pay

Law Is Sufficient To Establish The Moral Standard In The World of Business

The concept of business ethics ranges from respects of the obligatory law, to attention to
mutually shared ethical rules, to the collective well-being, and as far as philanthropy. Due to
such heterogeneity of interpretations, it proves useful to attempt to define the concept of
moral problems by establishing their content & limits.

Such a matter proves to be of primary importance; first , to be able to establish which

situation have underlying questions of ethical implication; second, to be able to evaluate the
moral conduct of the company.

The enterprise finds itself therefore in the position of conflict, enabling it to choose between
different modes of conduct, some legitimate (law) , others moral (power). Think about a
chemical enterprise, for which the law establishes certain quantities of polluting
substancesemitted into the environment.

To abstract from what the normal prescribed, such quantities of pollutant result to be toxic
for the people living extremely near the production factory. In his framework, the possible
operative choices of the enterprise can be contained within 2 types of conduct; respect the
law, damaging however the members of the community; respect the moral constraint of
power, modifying their own productive process, protecting the community.

Until now the law has been defined as the minimal obligatory constraint of the enterprise (in
addition to the minimal socio-ethical level) and power as the maximum moral constraint
indicating implicitly an order between the two measures.

It is by fact, stated that the nascent obligation from the norms decidedly less diffuse and
profound than that derived from power. Such a first intuitive relationship permits the
definitions of the space in which conflicts arise between law and the morality; the law
evaluates as sufficient conducts that ethics considered inadequate, requiring of it a different
profile.

In practice, this scenario happens less frequently, because the law would have to ask of the
enterprise a level of care and respect towards third parties which is higher than that morally
impose by its own power.

Considering that law and power can interact according to different relationship, an ethical
problem is not necessary present.

Every Company or Corporation Is Morally Responsible To The Society As a Whole

The attention given to the studies of business ethics over the last several decades has served to
reinforce the conviction that business corporation have social responsibility that requires them
to use some of their resources to address needs in their communities. These resources may be
cash, or physical property or even the time and energy of their employees. Ordinarily, the needs
addressed are outside the scope of the normal operations of the company. As a result, a
corporation made significant contribution to the arts or to social service organizations. In doing
this, advocates argue, they are merely being good corporate citizens and giving something back
to the society. We may call this the strong corporate social responsibility.

In 1970, Friedman wrote an article for the New York Times Magazines in which he argued that
business corporation best serve their societies when they increase their profitability.
Furthermore, he said, executive of business corporations had no warrant to use the assets of the
company for charitable purpose. To do so would constitute, in his judgment, an illicit tax on his
stakeholders since it would be a use of their money for public purposes that was neither
lawfully required nor consensual. This article has probably become the most commonly
reprinted in the business ethics literature (though it is normally offered as an example of wrongheaded responsibility). Not surprisingly, Friedman has been misunderstood or misinterpreted to
say that businesses need not be concerned about ethics in their pursuit of profit.

Over the last decade or two, as some version of the strong view has become the common
opinion in business schools and executive suites, thinking about the nature of the business
corporation and its relationship to the community has also changed. Quite often the moral
quality of a company has been evaluated in terms of its commitment to social responsibility. In
practice, however, this has created at least two kinds of problems, which on occasion have been
serious and which, in any event, should provoke us to reconsider the wisdom and soundness of
the corporate social responsibility.

The first kind of problem is that the specific nature of corporate contribution sometimes
becomes an obstacle to the successful conduct of business. For example, several companies
have received unwelcome publicity and been the largest of customer outrage because of their
support for or opposition to Planned Parenthood. Some years ago, the Target Corporation
(which famously donates5 percent of its taxable income each year to arts and service
organizations) came under criticism for its modest support of a Planned Parenthood program
unrelated to abortion services.

When it decided to drop its support on the ground that it was unnecessarily controversial, it then
was threatened with boycotts from customers and investor who supported abortion rights. After
a few weeks, the company reinstated its small grant to Finland to Planned Parenthood but then
of course, it was threatened with boycotts by pro-life customers.

Nevertheless, Business Corporation are at liberty to make whatever donations they wish to
address whatever needs they choose. The key, of course, is the difference between obligations
and freedom. What is not required may still be permitted. In the case of business corporations,
donations may be made when doing so will not undermine the legitimate operations of the
business, when employees and customers will not be harmed and with shareholders consent.

Corporate philanthropy has accomplished a great deal of good. No doubt it should be continue
vigorously but at the expense of a company more fundamental and important corporate social
responsibilities to create wealth, to provide goods jobs, and to offer products and services that
serve genuine human needs.

Employee Blow The Whistle

The firm through its products or policy will do serious and considerable harm to the public,
whether in the person of the user of its product, an innocent bystander or the general public.

Once an employee identifies a serious threat to the user of a product or to the general public, he
or she should report it to his or her immediate superior and make his or her moral concern
known. Unless he or she does so, the act of Whistle blowing is not justifiable.

If ones immediate superior does nothing effective about the concern or complaint, the
employee should exhaust the internal procedures and possibilities within the firm. This usually
will involve taking the matter up the managerial ladder, and if necessary and possible to the
board of directors.

Whistleblower must have accessible documented evidence that would convince a reasonable,
impartial observer that ones view of the situation is correct, and that the companys product or
practice possesses a serious and likely danger to the public or to the user of the product.

The employee must have good reason to believe that by going public the necessary changes will
be brought about. The chance of being successful must be worth the risks one takes and danger
to which one is exposed.

In fact, a loyal friend is not only someone who sticks by you in times of trouble but someone
who tries to help you avoid trouble.

This may imply to an employee that he or she is most loyal when trying to prevent something
that could lead to harm for customer, shareholders or the general public. If there is no proper
response internally, or if by the nature of the case, it is not possible to find an internal remedy,
then it would seem ethically correct to blow the whistle.

In fact sometimes, there can be a duty to do so. It would be obligatory for an employee to blow
the whistle when the level of harm to others is serious, and the employee has clear evidence of
the unethical practice that has led to it. This could, for example be in terms of products safety or
severe financial hardship for others.

In such case, before an obligation to go public could be imposed, it would require judgment that
there was no simpler solution.

Considerations
Make sure the situation is serious enough to warrant going in superiors or going public.
Examine your motives. Is it in the public interest or for revenge?
Be sure the exact nature of the problem and to whom it should be reported.
Sticks to the facts. Avoid personalizing the issue.
Check to see the amount of protection provided for whistleblower.
Consult a lawyer