answer_2 (3)
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Harvard University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
13
Uploaded by ProfessorKangarooMaster2666
1
The Turnip Plaza Hotel Report
Student’s Name
Department, Affiliation
Course Code; Course Name
Instructor’s Name
Due Date
2
Introduction
Mark Piper was a skilled tour guide for Turnip Plaza Hotel, a luxury hotel owned by
Colossal Corporation in Port Austin, Michigan. He specialized in high-adventure kayaking
tours, which brought significant revenue to the hotel. Mark was offered a job with a rival
hotel, Huron Overnight Inn, with a substantial salary increase. When he discussed the offer
with colleagues, one of them informed Turnip Plaza's manager, Edward Griffin. Edward
promised Mark a 50% raise and a two-year contract if he stayed with Turnip Plaza. Mark
turned down the offer from Huron Overnight Inn and decided to stay with Turnip Plaza.
However, shortly before receiving his new contract, Mark was dismissed due to corporate
restructuring.
What legal theories might Mark use to enforce Edward’s promise legally? Explain the
elements of these theories and how they apply to the facts of this scenario.
In this scenario, Mark might try to enforce Edward's promise by using the legal theory
of promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a legal doctrine that allows an individual to
enforce a promise made by another person if they relied on that promise to their detriment
(Bowen & Cox, 2021). This legal theory is based on the idea that a promise can be
enforceable even if it was not made as part of a formal contract if the person making the
promise had reason to know that the recipient would rely on it (Bowen & Cox, 2021). This
legal theory holds that a promise is made by one party.
In this scenario, Mark turned down the offer from Stacey Nguyen at Huron Overnight
Inn, relying on Edward's promise of a promotion and raise. If Mark can prove that he relied
on Edward's promise to his detriment, such as giving up the opportunity at Huron Overnight
Inn, he may have a claim for promissory estoppel. The recipient did rely on it to their
detriment. In this scenario, if Mark can show that he relied on Edward's promise of a
3
promotion and raise by turning down Stacey's offer and that he would not have turned down
the offer if he had not been promised the promotion and raise, then he might be able to use
this theory to enforce Edward's promise. The elements of promissory estoppel are:
i.
A clear and definite promise was made by Edward to Mark
ii.
Mark relied on that promise to his detriment, such as by turning down a job offer from
another company.
iii.
It would be unjust to allow Edward to retract the promise without consequences.
In this scenario, all three elements of promissory estoppel are present. Edward made a
clear and definite promise to Mark of a promotion with a 50 percent raise and a two-year
contract. Mark relied on that promise by turning down the job offer from Stacey Nguyen. It
could be considered unjust if Mark were to be now dismissed from Turnip Plaza without
receiving the promised promotion. In addition to promissory estoppel, Mark might also use
the legal theory of contract to try to enforce Edward's promise. For a contract to be
enforceable, there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual agreement. In this
scenario, the request was made by Edward, Mark made the acceptance, and the consideration
was the promise of a promotion raised in exchange for Mark's decision to stay with Turnip
Plaza.
The Contract Formation theory is based on the idea that a legally binding agreement was
formed between Mark and Edward when Edward promised Mark a promotion with a 50
percent. In this scenario, the offer was made by Edward and accepted by Mark. If the
requirements for a valid contract are met, including consideration, capacity, and legality, then
Turnip Plaza may be obligated to fulfill the terms of the contract (McGahan, 2021). An offer,
acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent must be offered for a contract to be legally
binding (McGahan, 2021). Edward's promise of a promotion and raise could be considered an
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
offer in this scenario. Mark’s decision to reject Stacey's offer and stay with Turnip Plaza
could be acceptable. Consideration is the exchange of something of value between the
parties, in this case, Mark's continued employment with Turnip Plaza in exchange for the
promise of a promotion and raise. Mutual assent refers to the agreement of both parties to be
bound by the terms of the contract.
Mark accepted the offer by turning down the offer from Stacey and staying with Turnip
Plaza. Consideration was present as Mark agreed to stay with Turnip Plaza in exchange for
the promise of a promotion and raise. However, it is important to note that for a contract to be
enforceable, it must be supported by consideration and made in good faith. In this case, it is
still being determined if the promise of a promotion and raise was made in good faith, as
Mark was ultimately dismissed due to corporate restructuring.
The Unjust Enrichment legal theory is based on the idea that it would be unjust for one
party to be enriched at the expense of another without being required to compensate the other.
In this scenario, Mark can show that he relied on Edward's promise of a promotion and raise
by turning down Stacey's offer and that Turnip Plaza would only have hired someone else to
take Mark's place if he had been promised the promotion and raise. He might be able to use
this theory to enforce Edward's promise. This theory involves the formation of a contract
between two parties. To form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and
consideration.
In this scenario, Edward's promise of a promotion and raise could be considered an offer,
and Mark's reliance on the promise is acceptable. Consideration involves something of value
being exchanged, in this case, Mark's continued employment in exchange for the promise of a
promotion and raise. If these elements are present, Mark may have a claim for breach. In this
scenario, if Turnip Plaza has benefitted from Mark's services and reputation as a tour guide, it
5
may be considered unjust for them to dismiss him without fulfilling the terms of the promise
made by Edward. Suppose Turnip Plaza benefited from Mark's reputation as a skilled tour
guide and the high adventure kayaking tours he was leading and then dismissed him without
providing the promised promotion and raise. In that case, it could be considered unjust
enrichment.
In conclusion, Mark might use three legal theories to enforce Edward’s promise legally.
However, it is only possible to determine a legal case's outcome by considering all the
specific facts and circumstances. If Mark decides to pursue legal action, Turnip Plaza needs
to be prepared to defend its activities and to have a clear understanding of its legal
obligations. There are also ethical considerations in this scenario, as it may be unethical for
Turnip Plaza to make a promise to Mark and then not fulfill it. Mark may have a legal case
for promissory estoppel or contract based on Edward's promise to him.
Mark may use the legal theory of agency law to enforce Edward's promise. Agency law is
a legal concept that governs the relationship between a principal and an agent, where the
agent acts on behalf of the principal. In this case, Edward, as the manager of Turnip Plaza,
may be considered Mark's principal, and Mark may be considered his agent.
To enforce Edward's promise, Mark would need to establish that Edward had the
authority to make the promise on behalf of Turnip Plaza and that Mark reasonably relied on
Edward's promise to his detriment. This would require proving the following elements:
i.
Actual authority: Mark must demonstrate that Edward had the authority to make the
promise. This means that Edward had the power to bind Turnip Plaza to the promise
he made to Mark.
ii.
Apparent authority: Mark would also need to show that Edward had the apparent
authority to make the promise. This means that Edward's actions and representations
6
to Mark created the impression that he had the authority to make such a promise on
behalf of Turnip Plaza.
iii.
Reasonable reliance: Mark would need to prove that he reasonably relied on Edward's
promise to his detriment. This means that Mark acted based on the promise and
suffered harm as a result of relying on it.
If Mark can prove these elements, he may be able to enforce Edward's promise under the
theory of agency law. However, it is important to note that Turnip Plaza may have defenses to
this claim. For example, Turnip Plaza may argue that Edward needed to have the actual or
apparent authority to make such a promise or that Mark did not reasonably rely on the
promise to his detriment. Additionally, the corporate restructuring due to liability concerns
may provide a legitimate business reason for terminating Mark's employment. Ultimately, the
specific facts and circumstances of the situation would need to be carefully examined to
determine the likelihood of success of any legal claims.
In terms of ethical issues, companies need to act in good faith and honor promises
made to their employees. Edward's promise to Mark may have been made in good faith. Still,
Turnip Plaza's decision to terminate Mark's employment shortly before he was due to receive
a promised promotion and raise raises questions about the company's commitment to its
employees. Turnip Plaza may want to consider the impact of this decision on its reputation
and relationship with its employees and take steps to address any concerns or grievances that
arise.
If Mark were to file a lawsuit and win, what sort of damages or other remedies might he
be entitled to?
In this case, if Mark can demonstrate that he relied on Edward's promise of a
promotion and a raise and that he suffered harm by staying with Turnip Plaza instead of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
accepting the offer from Huron Overnight Inn, he may have a claim for promissory estoppel.
If Mark were to win a lawsuit based on promissory estoppel, he might be entitled to the
damages he suffered due to relying on Edward's promise. This could include lost wages,
benefits from the promised promotion and raise, and any costs associated with finding new
employment after being terminated from Turnip Plaza.
In terms of the employment contract, if Mark had a valid and enforceable employment
contract with Turnip Plaza and was terminated without cause, he may have a claim for
wrongful termination. In this case, he may be entitled to damages for breach of contract,
including lost wages and benefits. It is important to note that, to succeed in a lawsuit, Mark
must demonstrate that he relied on Edward's promise, that he suffered harm as a result, and
that there was a clear and enforceable contract between him and Turnip Plaza. The outcome
of any legal action will depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
applicable state law.
The first damage that Mark may be entitled to be back pay. Mark may be entitled to
the difference between what he would have earned had he received the promised promotion
and raise and what he made before he was dismissed from Turnip Plaza. Turnip Plaza Hotel
has a duty of care to provide a safe and healthy working environment for its employees,
including Mark. As the hotel was offering high-adventure tours, it had a higher responsibility
to ensure the safety of its employees and customers.
Further, Mark may be entitled to front pay. If Mark can prove that he would have
continued to work for Turnip Plaza for the two-year term, he may be entitled to the front pay,
which represents the difference between what he would have earned if he had continued
working for the two-year term and what he is likely to earn in the future. In addition to back
8
pay, Mark may be entitled to front pay if the court determines that he would have continued
working for Turnip Plaza but for the unfair dismissal.
Mark might be entitled to compensatory damages, which are intended to compensate
him for his losses and make him whole again. These damages could include lost wages and
benefits, as well as any other financial losses he may have suffered as a result of relying on
Edward's promise of a promotion and a two-year contract.
Mark could argue that he turned down the offer from Stacey and remained with
Turnip Plaza because of Edward's promise and that he suffered financial losses when he was
dismissed from his job before the promised promotion and contract could take effect. To
support his claim, Mark may need to present evidence such as emails, witnesses, and any
documentation related to the promised promotion and contract. Mark could also seek other
remedies, such as reinstatement to his former position at Turnip Plaza or a comparable
position at a different hotel owned by Colossal Corporation. The specific remedies available
to Mark will depend on the facts of the case and the applicable laws and regulations.
Injunctive relief. Mark may also seek injunctive relief, a court order requiring Turnip
Plaza to perform its obligations under the contract. Injunctive relief is a court order that
requires a party to do or refrain from doing something (Jarosz et al., 2022). In Mark's case, if
he wins the lawsuit, he may be entitled to an injunction requiring Turnip Plaza to reinstate
him in his former position or provide him with alternative employment.
Duty of care. Edward had a duty of care to act in good faith and deal fairly with Mark.
Edward may have breached his duty of care by promising Mark a promotion and a raise and
then reneging on that promise (Palombo, 2019). Turnip Plaza Hotel has a duty of care to
provide a safe and healthy working environment for its employees, including Mark. As the
9
hotel was offering high-adventure tours, it had a higher responsibility to ensure the safety of
its employees and customers.
Unfair dismissal. Mark's dismissal may also be considered unfair if it was based on
reasons unrelated to his job performance, such as corporate restructuring. If Mark files a
lawsuit for unfair dismissal, he would need to prove that the reason for his termination was
invalid and that the hotel had not acted by its obligations under the employment contract and
the law. If he can prove that his dismissal was unfair, he may be entitled to damages or other
remedies.
Does Turnip Plaza have an ethical obligation to fulfill the promise made by Edward to
Mark? Is it right to lay off Mark under these circumstances? What should Turnip Plaza
do from an ethical perspective?
The legal and ethical issues in this situation raise questions about the enforceability of
promises made during the employment process and the obligations of employers to their
employees. It is recommended that the vice president consult with legal counsel to assess the
potential risks and liability associated with this situation and to take appropriate steps to
protect the interests of Turnip Plaza Hotel. Based on the facts presented, Mark may have a
valid claim for breach of contract and may be entitled to payback, front pay, and injunctive
relief if he wins the lawsuit. Ethical issues of duty of care and unfair dismissal may also be
considered. The vice president should consider these legal and ethical issues and seek legal
advice to determine the best action. Further, based on the legal and ethical issues involved,
Mark could be entitled to damages or other remedies if he files a lawsuit and wins. To
minimize the risk of such a lawsuit, I recommend that Turnip Plaza conduct a thorough
review of its dismissal processes to ensure they comply with all relevant laws and
regulations.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
10
Turnip Plaza has a duty of care to provide safe working conditions and to protect its
employees from harm. This includes ensuring that employees are not subjected to undue
physical or mental stress while on the job. The high adventure tours Mark was leading
involved potential hazards, and Colossal Corporation's concerns about increased liability
risks may have been a factor in Mark's dismissal. Turnip Plaza has a legal obligation to fulfill
its duty of care towards its employees. This means providing a safe and secure working
environment, adequate training, and avoiding employee harm. By offering high-adventure
tours, Turnip Plaza may have increased the risks to its employees and may have failed in its
duty of care.
The stakeholders in this scenario include Mark Piper, Stacey Nguyen, Edward Griffin,
the colleagues who shared information about the job offer, Turnip Plaza Hotel, Colossal
Corporation, the vice president, and potentially other employees and investors. It can be
argued that Mark Piper is the most important stakeholder in this scenario since he is directly
affected by the decisions made by Turnip Plaza and Colossal Corporation. However, the
interests of other stakeholders, such as the hotel and the corporation, should also be
considered. It appears that not all stakeholders were consulted in the business decision to lay
off Mark Piper. Additionally, while Edward Griffin promised a promotion and a salary
increase to Mark Piper, it is unclear whether this promise was communicated to other
stakeholders or approved by higher-ups in the corporation.
Mark Piper may choose to take legal action against Turnip Plaza if he believes that the
promise made by Edward Griffin was not fulfilled. Stacey Nguyen may also take legal action
against Mark Piper for breaching the terms of the job offer. Turnip Plaza and Colossal
Corporation may face reputational damage and a loss of revenue if their decision to lay off
Mark Piper is viewed as unethical by the public. Utilitarianism suggests that the decision
should be made based on the greatest overall benefit for all stakeholders involved. From this
11
perspective, the best decision would be for Turnip Plaza to fulfill the promise made by
Edward Griffin to Mark Piper. This would ensure that Mark Piper is compensated for his
skills and experience, and would also help to maintain the hotel's reputation as a desirable
tourist destination. Kantian ethics suggests that the decision should be made based on the
principle of respect for persons. From this perspective, Turnip Plaza has an ethical obligation
to fulfill the promise made by Edward Griffin to Mark Piper, as it would be disrespectful to
promise something and then renege on that promise.
Virtue ethics suggests that the decision should be made based on the character of the
individuals involved. From this perspective, Turnip Plaza and Colossal Corporation should
act with integrity and honesty by fulfilling the promise made to Mark Piper. From an ethical
perspective, Turnip Plaza should fulfill the promise made by Edward Griffin to Mark Piper.
This decision aligns with the ethical principles of utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and virtue
ethics. Fulfilling the promise would benefit Mark Piper and maintain the hotel's reputation as
a desirable tourist destination. Additionally, it would demonstrate integrity and honesty on the
part of Turnip Plaza and Colossal Corporation.
In conclusion, the situation involving Mark Piper raises several legal and ethical
issues, including the duty of care, unfair dismissal, moral obligation to fulfill the promise,
ethical implications of layoff, and ethical perspective. To resolve these issues, Turnip Plaza
should fulfill its ethical obligation to fulfill the promise made by Edward, act ethically by
treating Mark with respect and fairness, and provide him with fair and just compensation if it
cannot fulfill its promises.
While the legal implications of this situation are unclear, the
ethical considerations indicate that Turnip Plaza must fulfill its promise to Mark and that his
dismissal was not ethically justified. To avoid potential legal or ethical disputes, Turnip Plaza
should fulfill its promise to Mark and provide him with a fair severance package if the
promised promotion cannot be fulfilled.
12
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
13
References
Bowen, S. M., & Cox, R. E. (2021). # MeToo Meets Estoppel: How Bill Cosby’s Conviction
Got Tossed by Court’s Application of Equitable Doctrine.
Lincoln Mem’l UL Rev
,
9
.
Estlund, C. (2022). Wrongful discharge law in the land of employment-at-will: A US
perspective on unjust dismissal.
King’s Law Journal: KLJ
,
33
(2), 298–317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2022.2092938
Häyry, M. (2021). Just better utilitarianism.
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics: CQ:
The International Journal of Healthcare Ethics Committees
,
30
(2), 343–367.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180120000882
Jarosz, J. C., Contreras, J. L., & Vigil, R. L. (2022).
Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Patent
Cases: Repairing Irreparable Harm
.
McGahan, A. M. (2021). Integrating insights from the resource-based view of the firm into
the new stakeholder theory.
Journal of Management
,
47
(7), 1734–1756.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320987282
Palombo, D. (2019). The duty of care of the parent company: A comparison between French
law, UK precedents and the Swiss proposals.
Business and Human Rights
Journal
,
4
(02), 265–286. https://doi.org/10.1017/bhj.2019.15