Doncouse_Jeremy_Week1

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week1 - Running head: ETHICS CASE 1.1 1...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Running head: ETHICS CASE 1.1 1 Week 1 Assignment: Ethics Case 1.1 Jeremy Doncouse Mountain State University
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Running head: ETHICS CASE 1.1 2 Ethics Case 1.1: Concerning Chenard v. Marcel Motors. Was the contract a bilateral or a unilateral contract? Does Chenard win? Was it ethical for Marcel Motors to refuse to give the automobile to Chenard? Was the contract a bilateral or a unilateral contract? The contract was a unilateral contract. Unilateral means a promise for an act (Cheeseman & Reed, 2009). Marcel Motors promised that any golfer who shot a hole-in-one would be given a brand new Dodge vehicle. Does Chenard win? This is a much more difficult question to answer. Seemingly, Marcel Motors promised a gift for an act. So, on the surface it would seem like an easy decision in favor of Chenard. It doesn’t seem like Marcel Motors did a very good job of explaining the terms of the unilateral contract. There were no disclaimers mentioned in the case study so many questions remained unanswered.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

Doncouse_Jeremy_Week1 - Running head: ETHICS CASE 1.1 1...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online