Ethics & Law

This paper consists of three parts. Parts A and B would go together and Part C would come next. The paper would need to respond to given questions and the answers would incorporate model steps and ethical theories in resolving dilemmas. Personal experiences of this researcher will also form part of the paper, as they could be found applicable in the discussion. 2. 1 Answers to Parts A & B questions Parts A and B ask the following questions: What are the pressures that I face and the sources of these pressures? How might these pressures affect my judgement and what could I do to address these pressures?

What questions should I ask myself as I decide whether to close the deal or not with Fortune 500’s purchasing agent. Who would be affected if I chose to close the deal with Fortune 500 Company and how do I exactly describe the effects in the short-term and long-term? What my final decision would be and what ethical theories would I use to justify in my final decision? As a sales representative at a large computer company and being paid 100% commission and no basic salary, I may be considered not a regular employee. Hence if I have no sale made to clients for the company, I literally will receive nothing.

The pressures that I face will include the fact that I will have to make a choice between making the deal where I know certain things that I must disclose, which I may not disclose and telling the truth to the purchasing agent but may possibly risk not closing the deal. The sources of pressure could come from those with interests. The pressures to close the deal without the telling the truth to the purchasing agent of Fortune 500 include my personal interest to have commission in order to finance my personal needs including those of my children who need my support.

The other pressure could come from the company stockholders who would benefit from the closed deal by increasing stock prices. The other pressure could be from the executives who would stand to gain from the closed deal by their chance to exercise stock options because of stock price increase later. The pressures might affect my judgement in the sense that I may be compelled to act because I want to give in to one or more interests because of some emotional attachment not because it should be the most ethical thing to do.

To have a personal interest in something is always compelling especially if it is a matter of survival because my children and I need to survive. If I have other options to sustain my financial need for my self and my children the pressure would be less compelling, and I would become more objective about my decisions because the need to have the money from commission need not be done instantly. The pressure from stockholders may be a pressure to think about especially if the stockholder would be losing much money if the deal were not closed with the purchaser of computer.

If however, doing the right thing ethically is the most justified, I should be ready to accept that stockholders may have to face the risk from losing the value of their stocks as there is no obligation for me to violate my personal sense of justice and ethics. The pressure of the executives who may exercise stock option next quarter would be more compelling than those of the stockholders since these executives are part of the management and the issue could be closer and more relevant to me if these executives know that my failure to close the deal could affect their chance of getting wealthy as well.

To address the pressure, I just need to be more objective and be more logical so that I could be more ethical. The first thing is generate first my options and putting myself to do not under compulsion because I need the money but as a responsible person with freedom and knowledge of the consequences. The questions that I should myself as I decide to close the deal or with Fortune 500 purchasing agent include the following with the answers. If I close the deal, will I be violating what is ethical conduct in the company that I work with and in my profession?

If not I had all the reasons to go to answer first the next question. Am I not violating the law? If not, then I can proceed with the next question. Will is help the all concerned including my company, myself and other people or entities? If yes, then by all means I should proceed with the deal. The persons that would be affected if I chose to close the deal with Fortune 500 company would include the parties identified earlier. Closing the deal ethically, legally under a fair deal benefits every stakeholder and failing to do it under such circumstance will have unfavourable consequences or no consequences to said parties.

My final decision would be to close the deal as long as I could be assured that what I am doing is legal, ethical and fair under the circumstances. The ethical theory that would use to justify my final decision would include the Rawls’ theory of justice which is doing what is just to everybody including self (Henderson, S, et. al. , 2005; Rawls, J. 1999). 2. 2 Answers to Part C questions: Part C asks some questions on pressures as in the first two parts combined. I addition there are additional variables that must be considered this time like my leaving the company in nine months.

Other questions include knowing whether lack of knowledge on the part of Fortune about the nature of products to be sold would make the transaction of delivering computers illegal or unethical and whether the possibility of providing warranties for service could correct the same assuming there was previous illegality. This would include also describing the effects of the decision if the computers are bought and asking and answering the question if the purchased of refurbished computers would push through. This would also make a final decision and the ethical theory and/or model used in the process of resolving the dilemmas.

The pressures that I face will include the fact that I will have to make a choice between closing and not closing the same as in Parts A and- making the deal where I know certain things that I must be disclosed, which I may not do and telling the truth to the purchasing agent but may possibly risk not closing the deal. The only difference this time is that computers are not new but may not be delayed as in Parts A and B. The sources of pressure could come from those with interests including me. The same pressure that I had in Part A and B would be preserved, as I needed money to sustain the need of my children.

The same pressures that I had for my company would still be the same because anything that could happen to it in a wrong deal would be my concern regardless of the fact the I may be leaving in nine months. My decision to leave in nine months should be immaterial as a professional person since if I lose face with the deals that I entered into, my future business on dealership would suffer. A new pressure is added this time because I have significant other who happens to own a Bleevlt, which deals in computers including providing refurbished types of computers to clients.

As a significant other, I owe some sense of helping his or her business grow while possibly increasing my options on my pending transaction with Fortune 500. The fact that the Fortune 500 company would probably never knew that any of its computers were refurbished would not make it illegal for my company to deliver these computers because there could be warranty of service to there products sold. The refurbished products include provision for servicing by Bleevlt as provided in the case facts in addition to that of my company.

Moreover, it is a business practice that buyers would have to balance their budgets with the quality of the products that they are buying. If Fortune do not put into the product specifications as ordered about the requirements that the products should have parts that are all brand new, there is also nothing unethical not to tell Fortune. However, the moment that all parts should be new is clearly made and that I lied about the products by not telling them, that would be unethical because there would be element of bad faith.

The fact that my company will provide the unlimited technical support for three years would not make it legal to deliver refurbished computers to the Fortune 500 Company if there was already deceit in not disclosing matters when there is obligation to do it. What is right or wrong for failure to do an act is not made correct by another act although it would tend to create some advantage or security in return. If it was illegal, the same must be unethical since deceitful misrepresentation violated ordinary principles of ethics.

If I buy 2,000 computer from Bleevlt, the persons or entities that would be affected would include my significant other. It may benefit him or her financially because of added business but I would be destroying that relationship if I practice unethical things from it by misrepresenting, for example, that I am passing on new products to Fortune 500 Company when the opposite is true. I would also benefit from it if Fortune 500 would be ready to accept the order under ethical practices that would do. If we entered into unethical business, the effect would be against in terms of reduced credibility or even possible criminal liability.

My company would benefit from a fair deal since stock price would increase and I would be helping executives who would exercise stock option. Fortune would be meetings it needs well under a fair deal but if we practice unethical things, it may result to a ruptured future relationship or even possible legal actions. The question that I would ask include the possibility that Fortune 500 is ready to use such refurbished computers that would fit within their budget and that in so doing I would not be doing unethical that would destroy my name and relationships with the people and entities whom I deal.

If ever the computer would be purchased as refurbished, what guarantee in service and in part should be answered by the seller so that I could also make the some facts clear to Fortune 500? I should also ask myself how much I will earn from the transaction since I am paid on commission basis and as such the commission is basically based on amount of sales revenues. If the computers are bought from Bleevlt at lower price, the same product could be sold to Fortune at lower price hence my commission would also be low and if the same would cause more possible problems afterwards, I might be not just convinced to buy the same.

My final decision would be one that would close the deal to Fortune 500 whereby I had to find the best way of meeting the needs of the stakeholders including mine while making all my decisions legal and ethical under the circumstance. The ethical theory and models that I would use to resolve the resolve the dilemmas would include the following the Rawls’ theory of justice and cost benefit analysis (Carrow, M. et. al, 1998).

Under the said theory of justice, doing what is fair to all concerned is more preferable than hedonistic or utilitarian theory where I would have the better chance of establishing long-term relationship with people and entities because of the good name generated from the fair dealings (Rawls, J. (1999). I also applied cost-benefit model by looking at the cost compared with benefit of my commission if I will close the deal with Fortune 500. 3. Conclusion Making a choice is not easy. One needs to consider what is fair to many people including ourselves.

Finding what is fair to all concerned is finding that balance and the most responsible way of making a choice. A responsible choice must be therefore an ethical and legal one.


Carrow, M. et. al (1998), Democracy, social values, and public policy, Greenwood Publishing Group Case Studies Given for Parts A, B and C Henderson, S, et. al. (2005), Issues in financial accounting, 12th edn, Pearson Education, Australia, Frenchs Forest, NSW, pp. 958–83. Rawls, J. (1999), A theory of justice, Edition: 2, revised, illustrated, Oxford University Press