Name – Tanvir Ahmed Onif

Id-3687
Batch – 54D

1. Is there an enforceable contract between McDavid and Turner

Broadcasting? Explain.
2. Should Businesspeople be bound to their oral Word? Analyze it.
3. Did Turner Broadcasting act unethically in this case? Discuss.

Ans to ques no 1.

Yes, there is an enforceable contract between McDavid and Turner broadcasting.

T Broadcasting system wanted to sell its assets. The assets included the AH
Basketball team, AT Hockey team and P Arena. Person D expressed his wish to
buy assets of t broadcasting system. Both parties signed the letter of intent, held
meetings and conference calls, and began the process of drafting the agreement.
There was only an oral agreement between person D and T broadcasting system.

Ans to the ques no 2.

Businesspeople should be able to be bound by their oral word and agreements

because at this point business people should be are able to get not only a good
profit, but also to create for themselves the image of decent people and partners in
the business environment.

Unfortunately, there are people in the business, for which there are no rules of
respectable relations. They observe neither civil nor religious nor human laws of
morality. In the presented case the ability of Turner Broadcasting to be bound by
the oral word would shield them from the compensation of material damage of
$281 million.

Ans to ques no 3.

Byrne (2011) believes that “business ethics should include illicit businesses as
targets of investigation. “In the Turner Broadcasting System. Inc. v. McDavid
(2010) we see how unlawful and unethical actions were carefully investigated by
the trial. Turner obviously refused the oral agreement from the moment, when the
written contract was signed with the corporation Atlanta Spirit, LLC. Meanwhile,
the circumstance could not be interpreted as a waiver of prior oral commitments.
The courts of two instances during the proceedings found that Turner Broadcasting
System has breached the oral arrangement with David McDavid. It is reasonable to
assume that in this case the Turner’s negotiator has acted unethically in relation to
the partner, which led to the termination of the contractual and business relations
between the parties, and granted $281 million in material loses against Turner.