Running head: TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 1

Turnip Plaza Hotel Report

Name of Student

Institutional Affiliations

Executive Summary
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 2

This paper has examined the violations in which Turnip Plaza Hotel (TPH) in Port Austin,

Michigan, has violated against Mark Piper. Mr. Piper was employed for several years at Turnip

Plaza Hotel as a tour guide. Over the years, he gained a reputation as TPH’s best tour guide in

Michigan in the areas of kayaking, camping adventures, and hiking near the Great Lakes. The

critical analysis revealed that Turnip Plaza Hotel created legal action in which Mr. Piper could

have sued for promissory estoppel and breach of contract. Although there are many remedies for

breach of contract, the one thing which remains constant in businesses is ethical business

decision making and how companies value its employees when handling business affairs and/or

abrupt circumstances. What legal theories might Mark use to legally enforce Edwards promise?

If Mark were to file a lawsuit and win what sort of damages or remedies might he be entitled to?

These questions have been fully examined, however, after analyzing the many violations in

which Turnip Plaza Hotel committed against Mr. Piper, the research concludes that Colossal

Corporation did not exhibit care, respect, and integrity when firing its employee and that their

company needs to reevaluate its legal actions/and responsibilities toward its dedicated

employees.

Turnip Plaza Hotel Report

TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 3

Introduction

Different legal theories have developed over the years. They have been used as crucial

tools in judicial justice systems (Stoltenberg, 2008). Mark Piper, a former employee at Turnip

Plaza Hotel, was dismissed from the Michigan-based resort just before receiving an agreed

new contract. The dismissal was attributed to corporate restructuring and the need to reduce

liability risks in managing the hotel's high adventure tools. However, Mark Piper has an

opportunity to file lawsuit and demand for damages.

Legal Analysis and Remedies

According to Gordon (2016), “a contract is a legally enforceable promise or an exchange

of promises. To be enforceable, the contract must meet certain elements. There must be an offer,

acceptance of that offer, and then an intended exchange of value between the parties” (p. 203).

Based on the information which was given, Edward Griffin, the manager of Turnip Hotel Plaza,

promised Mark Piper a guaranteed two-year contract with a 50% promotion within the next two-

months. Piper was ultimately terminated because of “corporate restructuring due to concerns

about the increased liability risks of managing high adventure tours through colossal hotel”

(UMUC, 2018, para. 4). Notably, contracts are divided into unilateral and bilateral agreements

based on the duty of performance and how an offer to contract is accepted. A bilateral contract

consists of two promises between the individuals who form the contract. Specifically, one party

makes a promise to another party that he/she will do something (or forgo doing something) in

exchange for the other party’s promise to do something or promise to forgo doing something

(Gordon, 2016, p. 204). On the other hand, a unilateral contract is an agreement with only one

promise. That is, one party promises a future action if the other party performs whatever is

requested of them, but the promising party does not want a return promise. As such, a contract is
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 4

formed or comes into existence once the other party begins to perform the requested services,

and the contract becomes binding (p. 204).

On the contrary, an express contract arises from interactions in which parties discuss the

agreement and the promised terms. The contract does not have to be formal or in writing, but it

requires that the parties express their intentions in an agreement. An implied-in-fact contract

arises from the conduct of the parties rather than from words. In this case, the parties interact in a

manner that constitutes a legally enforceable contract. This means that all of the elements of an

enforceable contract can be inferred from the actions of the parties (Gordon, 2016, p. 3). A

binding contract must be offered by a (company) or person for it to be binding. In this case study,

Piper was promised promotion after he was approached by Stacy Nguyen, the manager of the

Huron Overnight Inn, a rival company of Turnip Plaza (UMUC, 2018, para. 3). However, Piper

turned down Nguyen offer and stayed with Turnip Plaza Hotel because of Griffin’s verbal

promotion promise.

Gordon’s (2016) study found that Contract law provides rules under which people agree

to exchange value. Contracts, express and implied, are the dominant manner by which

individuals exchange real and personal property. Contract law is a staple of a developed rule of

law system and enforceable contract rights provide confidence in undertaking economic activity

with others. Notably, increased confidence drives economic productivity (p. 167). States create

their own contract law. They pass statutes and allow courts to develop common law. State

legislators and judges rely upon model laws in developing the statutory and common law. These

model laws are known as the Restatement of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code

(Gordon, 2016, p. 203). Restatement is a model law that deals primarily with contracts that do
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 5

not involve the sale of goods or when goods are not the primary subject of the contract. Most

state common law generally tracks closely the provisions of the Restatement (p. 204).

After analyzing the various types of contracts, the question which remains is whether or

not Piper can hold Griffin accountable for making a legal promise which was not fulfilled.

According to the will or promise principle, commitments are enforceable because the promisor

has “willed” or freely chosen to be bound by his commitment (Barnett, 2011, para. 1). Some

states see the employer-employee relationship as a contract that cannot be undone without

specified or “good cause.” The terms of the contractual relationship consist of any

representations or assurances made by the employer prior to or during the term of employment

(Gordon, 2016, p. 376). A law can form the basis for an implied contract right or a contract

defense only where: the law in question is for either the joint benefit of the parties or exists for

the sole benefit of the moving party; the contract expressly incorporates the particular laws (or

parts of laws) as term(s) of the agreement; or the law maker’s intent for the law (inclusive of

laws stemming from the state’s police power) requires that a contract contain the law as

conveying both a contractual right and remedy (Feldman, 2017, p. 867).

Edward Griffin's promise to increase Mark Piper's salary by 50% and a new 2-year

contract was not fulfilled. As a result, the plaintiff may use various legal theories as a way of

enforcing the manager's promise. For instance, he may adopt the consequentialist theory.

According to Forschler (2013), the theory requires parties to evaluate both constructive and

detrimental consequences of an action. The legal theory will aid in analyzing moral

responsibility between the two parties. According to Burrows (2018, p. 3), Edward Griffin

should incorporate the Promissory Estoppel, a legal principle that propels promisers to fulfil

their promises and legally uphold their virtues.

TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 6

The doctrine of “promissory estoppel” also helps in determining this case. The doctrine

may serve as a substitute for consideration to make an agreement into a valid contract.

Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine. If the offeree reasonably relies on the offeror’s

promise to her detriment, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may make the contract valid

despite the absence of consideration. In this case, Mr. Piper relies on the promise given to him by

Mr. Griffin and therefore misses out the chance to get a higher paying job. According to the

doctrine, the two key elements are that the reliance must be reasonable in light of the situation,

and the relying party must suffer a tangible detriment (Gordon, 2016, p. 214). In this case, Mr.

Piper misses a chance to earn more and be promoted by relying on the promise made to him by

Mr. Griffin. Eventually, Mr. Piper is fired rather than getting promoted. Mr. Piper suffers

because of relying on the promise made to him by Mr. Griffin. The situation meets the two

elements and thus makes the contract between Mr. Piper and Turnip Hotel valid.

Further analysis also shows that the contract between Mr. Piper and Mr. Griffin meets the

five main elements of promissory estoppel. First, the promise made by Mr. Griffin was in the

form of insinuation or conveyance since he was acting on behalf of the Hotel, seeking to keep

one of their best employees through the promise of promotion. Second, Mr. Piper believed in the

promise the promisor made and acted on that promise by turning down another job offer, which

shows reasonable dependence on it. These elements make the contract valid and this implies that

the promise made can be upheld and enforced in a court of law against the promisor and used

only as a defense.  Promissory estoppel is usually employed if a court of law decides that

upholding the promise is the only way to avoid an injustice to the promisee (Brown. 2014, para.

4). This because the the promisor (Griffin) must uphold his end of the agreement because Piper

gave a verbal agreement to Griffin promise. Thirdly, the promisee (Piper) has to rely on the
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 7

action of promise by Griffin. Piper passed on a job opportunity to work for Stacy Nguyen at

Huron Overnight Inn, Turnip Plaza rival hotel. Lastly, Piper did not accept the job opportunity

with Nguyen because he was depending on Griffin to fulfill the promise, which caused him to

feel comfortable enough to not accept Nguyen job offer.

Types of Damages

Damages are common remedies for breach of contracts. If Mark Griffin decides to file

a lawsuit, he may be entitled to various damages. For instance, he may receive compensatory

damages since the breaching party failed to honor the agreed terms of salary increment. The

tour guide is also entitled to compensation due to liquidated damages (Rowan, 2014). These

entail reasonable estimates of the actual loss the non-breaching party encounters after a breach

of contract (Rowan, 2014). Finally, Mark Piper should receive non-pecuniary damages since it

is highly likely that his dismissal will result in non-monetary losses.

Ethical Issues

Ethical Standards

Ethical Standards

Various ethical considerations are involved in this case study, both for the employer and

the employee. The ethical standards the employer should have observed include integrity, justice,

fairness, kindness, moral responsibilities, and openness. Integrity involves keeping one’s word

and playing their roles diligently. Mr. Griffin failed the integrity test because he did not keep the

promise that he made to Mr. Piper. It turns out that Mr. Griffin was using the promise to tie down

Mr. Piper to the company. In addition, Mr. Griffin was supposed to treat Mr. Piper fairly, with

justice and kindness, as well as observe his moral responsibilities and show openness. Mr.

Griffin’s actions are void of these ethical standards. For instance, he treated Mr. Piper harshly by
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 8

dismissing him from work on shaky grounds. He also lacked kindness and fairness because

instead of promoting Mr. Piper as he had promised, he ended up firing him. Further, there was

evidently no openness between Mr. Griffin and Mr. Piper. Mr. Griffin knew that his efforts were

aimed at ensuring that Mr. Piper stayed at the company. However, he lied to him so that he could

reject better-paying offers. Further, lying to Mr. Piper to keep him is a show that Mr. Griffin

failed in his moral responsibilities.

Ethical Considerations

There are various ethical considerations to make in this case. The first is the case of the

ethical issues that should be considered when terminating a contract or dismissing an employee.

First, the employer should determine whether or not they are following their own policies

(Shepherd, Patzelt, Williams, & Warnecke, 2014, p. 513). In this case, there is no mention of any

procedures and policies regarding termination and discipline that the Hotel follows. Therefore,

failure to formulate and follow procedures and policies risks exposing the business to a

discrimination path.

The second ethical issue to consider is whether there is any documentation that supports

the basis for termination of the employee (Oktafianto, Al Akbar, Zulkifli, & Wulandari, 2018, p.

177). Mr. Griffin did not have any written documentation that supports the basis for firing Mr.

Piper. Since there was no documentation for Mr. Piper having committed a clear violation of

misconduct, Mr. Griffin could only base his claim on verbal agreements and cases of ‘he said she

said’ between him and Mr. Piper. Lack of such documentation should be treated as lack of

evidence for clear dismissal of Mr. Piper.

Third, it is ethical to establish whether or not the decision to fire the employee was based

on poor performance (Kurec, 2014, p. 295). It is necessary to ensure that the employer has a
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 9

well-documented employee file to indicate that the employee has previously been put on notice

due to poor performance. In this case, Mr. Piper was actually the best-performing employee; this

is why he attracted attention and offers from other businesses. Therefore, there is no ethical

grounds for firing Mr. Piper and failing to honor the promise made to him by Mr. Griffin.

Further, the employer did not follow the appropriate steps in firing Mr. Piper. The first

step should have been a verbal warning (Kurec, 2014, p. 295). Mr. Griffin should have discussed

any issues arising with Mr. Piper and explained to him any corrective measures that could be

taken against him. The meeting should also involve another meeting and notes be taken for

documentation. The documentation should be signed by both managers. There was no such

verbal warning to Mr. Piper since he was not accused of any performance misdemeanor.

The second step should be issuing a written warning. Mr. Griffin should have drafted a

written warning stating any violation by Mr. Piper and the plan to correct the behavior. He

should also have discussed any issue with Mr. Piper and also put him on a probationary period as

one of the corrective measures. The warning should be written and signed by the two managers

in the sitting and the employee. However, this did not happen since Mr. Griffin failed to follow

the appropriate steps.

The next step should have been suspension. Mr. Piper should have been suspended for

several days without pay if the previous two steps have already been taken (Macaulay, 2018, p.

160). If there is a need for investigation, Mr. Griffin should have ordered Mr. Piper to leave

office until a final decision has been made. If the decision absolves Mr. Piper of any violation

and wrongdoing, he should have been paid fully for the time he was suspended. The process did

not reach this step since it was never started in the first place.
TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 10

The final step should have been termination.  Mr. Piper was fired without undergoing the

aforementioned steps (Duncan & Hill, 2014, p. 297). Mr. Griffin should have followed the steps

to establish the wrongdoing that Mr. Piper had done. However, Mr. Piper was fired without any

verbal warning, written warning, or suspension. The process shows that all ethical issues that

should be considered when terminating an employee’s contract were ignored.

Notably, the theory of utilitarianism can be applied in this case. Application of the theory

lead to decision-making and conclusion-drawing based on whether or not the overall good

outweighs any bad. The positive outcome is that Mr. Piper stands a chance to get justice. The

negative outcomes include Mr. Piper being fired unlawfully, Mr. Piper missing out a better-

paying job, Mr. Griffin lying to Mr. Piper, Mr. Piper failing to get promoted, and

psychological torture that Mr. Piper faces after being fired. Therefore, the negative outcomes

outweigh the positive outcomes and therefore the overall outcome of the case was negative.

Recommendations

According to the Bargain Theory, the idea of reciprocity is enforceable. This means

that the exchange between parties of two promises in exchange for an action is enforceable by

law since it is a consideration for the promise (Hillman, 2012, p. 60). Therefore, Turnip Plaza

Hotel has an ethical obligation to fulfil the promise made by Griffin. The plaintiff turned

down an offer from Stacey Nguyen, the manager of the Huron Overnight Inn, after agreeing

better terms with Edward Griffin (Fried, 2015, p. 29). Laying off Mark is illegal and unethical.

From an ethical perspective, Turnip Plaza should fairly engage Mark and come up with a

mutually concrete decision. The plaintiff's grievances should be addressed, and the working

norms in the hotel relating to employee dismissal should be affected.

TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 11

As a recommendation, the Vice President should mitigate any form of employee law

violation and conflicts of interest. Therefore, he should instantly address the issue and engage

the top management in making sound decisions. Ethical decision making is a fundamental

component of organizational performance. It enhances conflict resolution in the business

context. According to Cooper (2012), ethical decision making ensures that employers follow

the established rules and performance standards. Applying ethics in the case of Turnip Plaza

Hotel will require awareness and sensitivity to ethical issues that may potentially arise. Such

issues include failure to observe consideration for the promise that it made to Mr. Piper.

In this case, it is recommended that Turnip Plaza Hotel compensates Mr. Piper as a

case of consideration for the promise that the Hotel made to Mr. Piper. Based on the

evaluation of the case study and application of the Law of Contract and Consideration for the

promise, it is recommended that Turnip Plaza Hotel considers re-hiring Mr. Piper,

retroactively pays Mr. Piper (For work he performed during a previous pay period), increases his

contract to five-more years; thus giving him a 70% raise, and also gives a written and oral public

apology to Mr. Piper and the Turnip Plaza tourist and/ or customers. Further, it is recommended

that the manager, Mr. Griffin, issues official apology to Mr. Piper for any inconvenience and

mental torture caused. The business should also adhere to the rules and regulations regarding to

dismissal to avoid unfair employee dismissal.

TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 12

References

Barnett, R. E. (2011). [Scholarly project]. Retrieved October 25, 2018, from

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1614&context=facpub

Brown, S. (2014, July 03). 5 Elements of Promissory Estoppel in Contract Law and Legal

Agreements -. Retrieved October 23, 2018, from https://etiennelawyers.com/5-elements-

of-promissory-estoppel-in-contract-law-and-legal-agreements/

Burrows, A. S. (2018). Contract, Tort and Restitution—A Satisfactory Division or Not?.

In Restitution (pp. 3-53). Routledge.

Cooper, R. (2012). Making the case for ethical decision-making models. Nurse

Prescribing, 10(12), 607-611. doi: 10.12968/npre.2012.10.12.607

Duncan, M., & Hill, J. (2014). Termination documentation. Business and Professional

Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 297-311.

Feldman, S. (2017, November 30). Statutes And Rules Of Law As Implied Contract Terms: The

Divergent Approaches And A Proposed Solution[Scholarly project]. Retrieved October

25, 2018, from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1540&context=jbl

Forschler, S. (2013). Kantian and consequentialist ethics: the gap can be

bridged. Metaphilosophy, 44(1-2), 88-104. doi: 10.1111/meta.12015

Fried, C. (2015). Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University

Press, USA.

Gordon, J. (2016, August 18). Business Law: An Introduction by

TheBusinessProfessor.com[Scholarly project]. Retrieved October 22, 2018, from

TURNIP PLAZA HOTEL REPORT 13

https://thebusinessprofessor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Business-Law-An-

Introduction.pdf

Hillman, R. A. (2012). The richness of contract law: an analysis and critique of contemporary

theories of contract law(Vol. 28). Springer Science & Business Media.

Kurec, A. S. (2014). Employee selection. In Clinical Laboratory Management, Second

Edition (pp. 295-308). American Society of Microbiology.

Macaulay, S. (2018). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. In The Law

and Society Canon (pp. 155-167). Routledge.

Oktafianto, M. R., Al Akbar, Y. F., Zulkifli, S., & Wulandari, A. M. (2018). Dismissal Working

Relationship using Analytic Hierarchy Process Method. International Journal of Pure

and Applied Mathematics, 118(7), 177-184.

Rowan, S. (2014). Remedies for Breach of Contract. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., Williams, T. A., & Warnecke, D. (2014). How does project

termination impact project team members? Rapid termination,‘creeping death’, and

learning from failure. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 513-546.

Stoltenberg, C. (2008). Law, regulation, and international business. American Business Law

Journal, 40(3), 445-457. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1714. 2003.tb01158.x