Running Head: Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 1

Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical

Joshua Beavers

University of Maryland Global Campus

MBA630 Leading in the Multicultural Global Environment

Professor Keith Diener

April 23, 2024

Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 2

Introduction

Turnip Plaza Hotel, a luxury hotel for Colossal Corporation located near Lake Huron’s

famous Turnip Rock, was fortunate to have a skilled tour guide named Mark Piper. Mark's

expertise in extreme kayaking, hiking, and camping adventures in and around the Great Lakes

was unparalleled. He was a sought-after guide, often requested by name by tourists visiting the

hotel. His prowess even earned him a spot on extreme sports television. His high-adventure

kayaking tours were not just thrilling experiences for the tourists, but also a significant source of

revenue for the hotel (UMGC, 2024).

However, Mark was approached by a rival manager at the Huron Overnight Inn, who

offered him a higher compensation than what he was receiving at Turnip Plaza Hotel. When

Mark's manager, Edward Griffin, discovered this offer through another employee, he spoke to

Mark about his current employment at Turnip Plaza Hotel. To convince Mark to decline the rival

offer, Edward offered him a promotion, a 50% raise, and a guaranteed two-year contract. This

persuaded Mark, and he rejected the rival hotel's manager's offer.

Regrettably, just a week before the ink could dry on the new contract, corporate made a

sudden and unexpected decision to dismiss Mark. Their concerns about the increased liability

risks of managing high adventure tours through Colossal's hotel led to this abrupt action. As of

now, Mark has taken no formal action against the company, leaving his future uncertain.

This report aims to evaluate and be proactive if Mark is willing to take legal action. The

question to be addressed is what legal theories Mark can use to enforce Edward's promise. If

Mark were to file a lawsuit and potentially win, what damages and/or remedies would Mark be

owed? Additionally, does Turnip Plaza Hotel have an ethical obligation to fulfill Edward's
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 3

promise to Mark? The moral and ethical implications of dismissing Mark, considering an ethical

perspective, are significant and need to be considered.

Legal Theories

The manager of Turnip Plaza Hotel, Edward Griffin, entered into a contract with Mark

Piper. Although there was no formal agreement or written document, an express contract arose

with the verbal communication between Edward and Mark (Marson, 2011). Edward's

communication promised Mark’s services as a tour guide with Turnip Plaza with an offer of a

promotion, increased compensation, and a guaranteed commitment to be employed for a two-

year term (Marson, 2011). Mark, as a promisee, accepted the offer and understood the exchange

of value, and as such, he would continue to be employed with Turnip Plaza Hotel with increased

compensation. During Edward's verbal promise, there was a meeting of minds, and neither party

was under any form of influence and had full intention and understanding of the agreement.

These elements prove Mark conducted a valid contract with Turnip prior to his dismissal from

his employer. Although Turnip Plaza Hotel fired Mark prior to the actual signing of the formal

agreement, this would still be considered a breach of contract. One of the elements of the offer

was guaranteed employment for two years. Mark did not make it a week before he was let go.

The dismissal by corporate breaches the clause of the contract Edward as an agent of Turnip

Plaza conducted with Mark.

To further enforce the contract, Mark can make the case of the verbal contract to be a

broken promise in addition to a breach of contract; this would be a valid case under a doctrine

known as promissory estoppel. The equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel applies in

situations when one party relies to her detriment on another party's promise (Marson, 2011).

Edward made a promise or offer to Mark, which discouraged him from accepting an offer from a
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 4

rival hotel, and the detriment was Turnip Plaza Hotel dismissing Mark before signing the verbal

contract on the grounds of liability. Mark suffered a major loss by accepting the offer with

Edward and Turnip Plaza Hotel. If he had rejected Edward's offer or not given one, he would not

be without employment as he could/would have accepted the rival manager's offer at Huron

Overnight Inn. The court can probably hold the verbal contract to be enforceable under the

doctrine of promissory estoppel (Marson, 2011).

As per common law, when one party offers something in return for the other party's

continued performance of an existing obligation, the contract between the parties becomes a

modified contract (Nolo, n.d.). In the case of Edward and Mark, Edward offered Mark a

promotion and continued employment for two years in exchange for Mark's continued service at

Turnip Plaza. This modification was not formal and was made orally, but it was still binding

under common law (Nolo, n.d.).

It is important to note that verbal contracts can be just as valid and enforceable as written

contracts under common law. This means that Mark has a strong case to enforce the modified

terms of the contract in his favor, either by keeping his job or receiving compensation for any

damages incurred as a result of the breach.

In Mark's case, Turnip Plaza failed to keep its promise under promissory estoppel, a legal

doctrine that prevents a party from going back on a promise made to another party if the other

party relied on that promise to their detriment. As a result, the modified contract between Mark

and Edward became legally binding, and Mark had a right to enforce the terms of the agreement.

It is crucial to consider all legal precedents when analyzing similar situations in the future

to ensure that the rights of all parties involved are protected. Mark's rights are protected by

common law, and justice must be served in this matter.

Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 5

Damages and/or Remedies

In the event that Mark chooses to take legal action against Turnip Plaza Hotel and the

court rules in his favor, he may be entitled to collect damages and/or remedies as compensation

for the breach of contract. The damages awarded by the court are generally compensatory in

nature, meaning they are intended to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in

had the contract been properly executed. These damages are an essential aspect of contract law,

as they serve to ensure that parties are held accountable for their contractual obligations and that

fair compensation is provided to those who have been wronged (Marson, 2011).

According to Marson (2011), if Mark were to sue his former employer, Turnip Plaza, for

breach of contract, he could potentially claim damages equal to the increase in his salary over a

two-year period. This would represent the profit he would have made if he had not been

wrongfully dismissed. Furthermore, Mark could also claim consequential damages resulting

from an unusual loss that both parties were aware would be caused by the breach of contract.

The contract was made because Mark was offered a job by a rival hotel with a better

salary package. To retain Mark's services, Turnip Plaza made a counteroffer via their

representative, Edward, which Mark accepted, thereby rejecting the rival hotel's offer. However,

Mark was later dismissed from his job, which resulted in him losing the opportunity to work

elsewhere (Marson, 2011).

If Mark had resigned before being dismissed by Turnip Plaza or if he had been fired

before agreeing to Edward's counteroffer, he could have accepted the rival hotel's offer and

continued his employment. Therefore, Mark could potentially claim damages equal to the salary

the rival hotel had offered him as consequential damages (Marson, 2011).
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 6

Furthermore, Mark would be entitled to the broken promise by Turnip Plaza Hotel under

the doctrine of promissory estoppel. As stated, Edward promised, and Mark accepted the offer

with consideration, although it was not written, due in part to his firing. The hotel did not commit

to its promise, and Mark should be able to collect damages as a remedy for his unexpected

unemployment (Graw, 2019). In addition, Mark could claim job reinstatement as a remedy

instead of collecting damages. That would be an agreed-upon decision with Turnip Plaza, as they

would need to decide if the risk of Mark’s tours is greater than the damages to be owed. Mark

would be able to collect reliance damages. He relied on this job to pay him for his services and

employment. His reliance on the hotel with increased wages and a two-year term would mean he

personally has a more comfortable living situation (paying personal expenses), and he would not

need to worry about being unemployed for two years. Since they fired him shortly after the

agreed promise, he no longer has the means to keep up his current lifestyle (Graw, 2019).

Ethical Issues

Edward made a promise to Mark to try to keep him on board after a rival hotel manager

tried to recruit him away from Turnip Plaza Hotel. Under agency law, Edward is a general agent

acting on behalf of his employer/principal, Turnip Plaza Hotel. Edward's actions to counteroffer

the rival hotel manager's offer can be viewed as part of his responsibilities or within his scope of

work to keep employees working for the company. Turnip Plaza ultimately fired Mark because

of his high-risk tours. Although those tours generate a high profit, they can come with high

liability claims if someone gets hurt. It can be argued that this is a valid point of view from the

hotel's perspective, but it may not be considered an ethical decision to terminate Mark's

employment, as he was hired to provide tours. Additionally, it is currently unknown whether the
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 7

hotel has a liability waiver or insurance policy for its tour guides. Turnip Plaza Hotel should be

obligated to honor the verbal agreement made between Edward and Mark.

Was it right to lay off the highly regarded tour guide? Outside of the legal ramifications,

this is an ethical issue. It is best to review the ethics test to grade the ethical issue. The first is

called the front-page test or viral news test. If this case made the front-page news, how would it

proceed? The title of the best news could have been "Local well-known tour guide promoted,"

but unfortunately, due to the hotel's decision, it may now read "Broken promises and

termination." Indeed, the firing was not because of the agreement, but the timing of the firing

versus the reason can be convoluted and viewed negatively if viewed from the public eye. There

are 5 other traditional tests to evaluate this decision. Next, we have rights with respect to the

human rights of those affected. Mark was fired from his job without any respect or dignity.

Although he was offered generous compensation by Turnip Plaza through Edward, he was

ultimately let go due to a corporate restructuring. The situation was not just or fair, as all parties

involved were not treated equally or proportionally. According to the case, there was no

discussion regarding keeping Mark prior to his firing. He entered an agreement and, within a

week, was let go. Based on his agreement, there was a two-year term to stay on board, and he did

not even make a week; that is not justice or fairness. As previously stated, virtues, honesty, and

integrity towards Mark were few and far between.

In terms of the common good, Turnip Plaza Hotel looked at the case from a financial

point of view. Mark’s extreme tours can be risky and have a high liability if someone is hurt.

However, in this case, it can be said that Mark had not had a problem with a tourist getting hurt

during his tour guide activities. It is fair to look out for people, but Mark is the best at what he

does, and he would not want to get someone injured because it could cost him his job. He has not
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 8

committed any harm, but the promise the hotel made, and Mark's suffering are not the common

good. Lastly, utilitarianism, or the greatest good principle, does the overall good outweigh any

bad? The bad here is Mark’s untimely firing; the good is the hotel avoids potential liability cases

if someone were to get hurt during Mark’s tours in the event the hotel does not have insurance or

a liability waiver in place. But the greater good is Mark overperforming in his position; bringing

in high profits could outweigh some of the risks if someone got hurt as well.

From an ethical perspective, it would not be fair to lay off an employee who contributed

immensely to the hotel's and the corporation's success. Mark has dedicated several years to the

hotel and has developed a reputation as a skilled tour guide. Laying him off would be a

disservice to him and the tourists who have come to rely on his expertise and the hotel's

reputation.

In conclusion, laying off Mark Piper due to his significant contribution to the Turnip

Plaza Hotel and Colossal Corporation would not be ethical or legal. The hotel has a moral and

legal obligation to treat its employees fairly and adhere to employment laws and regulations.

Recommendation

From an ethical and legal perspective, Turnip Plaza has a major decision to make.

Unfortunately, the decision does not mean to re-hire Mark; the unfair treatment can more than

likely lead to underperformance, loss in profit, and ultimately a larger risk factor than

anticipated; if re-hired, the question becomes two parts: what to do with Mark? And how can

Turnip Plaza protect itself in the future if this instance arises again? It would be right to

apologize for what it is worth and be honest about the decision to fire him; this can be a learning

point for Mark as he ventures elsewhere. At the same time, it would be fair to impose a bonus

factor or monetary agreement between the two parties to honor a portion of the agreement, in a
Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 9

way avoiding court and potentially larger losses if brought to court. The agreement would be a

peace offering because the offer Edward put onto Mark interfered with Mark still employed; if

Edward had known the corporate decision prior to the dismissal or Edward had not known about

the offer from the rival hotel, Mark would be working elsewhere.

The second question is whether Turnip Plaza could or has instituted a waiver/liability

form for the tourist to sign. This way, if ever an unfortunate happenstance during a tour, extreme

or not, the consumer understands the dangers and risks they are taking. This way, all parties are

protected, including the Turnip Plaza Hotel, as they warn the tourists, and the tourists would

understand what is coming by participating in the following activity.

Project 2: Making Decisions That are Legal and Ethical 10

References

Course Resource Turnip Plaza Hotel (2024) University of Maryland Global Campus. Retrieved from

https://leocontent.umgc.edu/content/umuc/tgs/mba/mba630/2211/courseresource-list/the-turnip-

plaza-hotel.html?ou=541394.

Graw, S. (2019). An introduction to the law of contract (9th ed.). Thomson Reuters.

Marson, J. (2011). Business Law: Vol. Second edition. OUP Oxford

Nolo. (n.d.). Oral contracts. Retrieved from https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/oral-

contracts-do-exist-make-36147.html