Search results

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

In the 1990s, Mike Flanagan foresaw video moving from analog to digital and developed an equipment rental business to meet the needs of the entertainment/media production industry. By 1996 he established a second company to offer training in the use of Avid, a digital video-editing program. Flanagan sold the rental business in 1998 and by 2002 expanded the training away from a business model to a full-fledged college business model. By 2014 what started as a successful training program developed into a negative interaction with the US Department of Education and Flanagan found himself being forced out of business.

This case was originally a client-based project conducted real time in an MBA-level marketing course at the Graziadio School of Business and Management at Pepperdine University.

The case is well suited for a variety of business and law courses that integrate ethical decision making in their curriculum at the undergraduate and graduate levels. The case allows for a greater understanding of the implications of managerial behavior tied to ethical beliefs and the possible outcomes that may result. It also allows for a stronger grasp of the integral nature of management, staff, consumers and outside organizations on the pervasive impact of non-ethical behavior. Last, this case creates a framework for students to assess how ethics influence managerial behavior that will affect an organization’s success.

What ethical duties and obligations does a business owe to its customers and other stakeholders? Is ignorance an excuse for failing to meet those ethical obligations?

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression to its citizens. This freedom is not absolute and the State can impose reasonable restrictions. Of late, certain incidents have shown this freedom to be under threat. The case highlights some of such events. It makes the readers think about the importance of this right, reasonableness of restrictions, and the measures needed to protect it.

The Fundamental Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of India, are very substantive rights. The rights, however, are available only against the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. The definition of State includes the Union and States' legislatures and executive. The meaning of these terms is clear and definite. The last entry in the definition is Other Authorities. This term has been subject to judicial interpretations. The Airport Authority of India Case was a landmark judgement expanding the scope of Other Authorities. It formulated that a public corporation, which was an instrumentality or agency of the government, should be considered as Other Authority.

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

The case uses primary source documents, such as the court cases brought forth by the SEC and US District Attorney, for the specifics about the fraud and secondary sources for further background information about the town and industry. The individuals in the case are not disguised. The authors have no connection to the case.

Thomas Laws was a CPA, a registered investment advisor and a real estate broker. Laws made a poor business investment. Instead of taking the financial hit, Laws orchestrated a complex Ponzi scheme using clients from his CPA practice and embezzling money from an employer, Santa Fe Gold Corporation. Laws’ scheme continued until his employer confronted him about missing funds. Frank Mueller, the CFO of Santa Fe, did not exercise the due diligence necessary until it was too late. Rest’s framework for ethical decision making is used to frame the ethical decisions Mueller can make. The case examines the conflict-of-interest guidance issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and allows students to examine the due diligence and controls needed by employers and prospective investors.

This case is designed for undergraduate accounting students taking Intermediate Accounting I, ACCT 0312 at the authors’ institution, typically junior-level students. It would be appropriate whenever you introduce the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct during an ethics discussion.

The learning outcomes of this study are as follows: use advanced frameworks and tools to convey complex ideas related to corporate social responsibility and ethics; apply relevant concepts and theories of ethics and corporate governance to a practical situation while making decisions; demonstrate understanding of the importance of stakeholders when developing socially responsible thinking; and analyze ethical and legal conflicts that need to be considered by employees in situations of whistleblowing.

Sara Khan was a Pakistani-American who had moved to Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2015 to pursue her Bachelor’s degree in accounting. After graduation, she started working for a baked products manufacturer, Dough Fresh, which was a business unit of Dubai-based Fresh Foods Co. Three years later, she enjoyed her work in the company that embraced strong ethical values and socially responsible practices. She was recently given the task of delivering a financial statements’, investment projections’ and cost-cutting presentation to the senior management of Dough Fresh. Her performance at completing this task was of critical importance for her obtaining the eagerly awaited promotion to the senior accountant position. One day, while Sara was looking through some files to update the financial statements’ records, she came across a deleted purchase order of poppy seeds that amounted to AED 680,000. While poppy seeds were widely used as ingredients in baked products in other countries, they were illegal in the UAE. After approaching her colleague from the purchasing department, she realized that the purchasing manager, who was the grandson of the chairman, was closely involved in the matter. Moreover, it appeared that poppy seeds were used unwashed, which triggered deleterious health consequences and made them highly dangerous to consume. As Sara spent more time researching about poppy seeds and whistleblowing laws in the UAE, she questioned whether she should divulge this information or keep it for herself. Making this decision was extremely challenging. Because the UAE laws regarding whistleblowing were not comprehensive and constantly evolving, she was not certain whether her identity and reputation would be protected in case she decided to blow the whistle. Even more, she worried immensely about the prospect of her colleagues losing their jobs if this information became public, as many of them needed the money to support their families back home and to finance expensive health-related treatments of their relatives. At the same time, she was also aware that if poppy seeds were consumed by people unknowingly, this could lead to serious and even fatal health consequences. All things considered, Sara was caught between deciding what was the right thing to do.

This case study can be used in a higher level undergraduate business course on Business Ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

Strategic management.

Entry-level post-graduate management students at an MBA program; middle-level professionals in an executive management program.

Royal India Food Retail (RIFR) is an organized food retailer, head-quartered in Delhi, India. The firm has established 180 outlets across the three Indian states of Delhi, Chandigarh and Punjab, selling fruits and vegetables, full-range of staples, grocery items and essential non-food items and fast-moving consumer good products. Since its inception, RIFR has been making losses, owing to both unfavourable external conditions and poor strategic management. In 2014-2015, RIFR reported earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) loss of Rs 46m as against Rs 276m in 2013-2014 and Rs 346m in 2012-2013. This case examines the problems of RIFR, against the backdrop of an unfavourable industry structure and the need for astute decision making, and poses the question of what the next step for RIFR should be.

Developing a clear understanding of the business environment; understanding the challenges faced by businesses in emerging markets; highlighting the dynamics of a volume-driven vis-à-vis a margin-driven approach to business strategy; and the importance of resources as critical elements of strategy development.

Teaching notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy.