Summary of Dispute
The source of the dispute is an insufficiently precise document, which was incorrectly interpreted by one of the parties that signed the corresponding agreement. As a result of the misunderstanding, both contract participants refused to accept each other’s demands. In particular, Dazzling Dough Co. believes that the agreement was drawn up correctly, and it has no double meaning. The representatives of Jerry’s Pizza, on the contrary, consider that the supplier delivered fewer goods purposefully, resorting to legal cunning without interpreting the text of the document in more detail. When talking about the reasonableness of the interpretation, Jerry’s Pizza requirements look objective since initially, this party planned to purchase a specific volume of the goods from the second party. Dazzling Dough Co., in turn, can argue the position by saying that there were no clarifications concerning separate deliveries, and the company’s specialists could regard the declared amount as general but not separate for a particular product. In order to resolve the dispute, documentary evidence would be useful, for example, the record of the company representatives’ conversation about the upcoming transaction.
Proposed Revisions to Contract Language
In order to eliminate misunderstandings and disagreements, it would have been necessary to introduce certain changes in the contract language. Dazzling Dough Co. would not have delivered all the goods in the volume of 200 pounds if Jerry’s Pizza had clarified that it was the required weight of the pizza dough but not all ordered products. In this case, the supplier could have specified whether the order was unified and the weight was ordered for only one product, which was required in the largest amount. These clarifications would certainly have helped to avoid the dispute.
Ethical Considerations
When taking into account ethical considerations, it would be necessary for Dazzling Dough Co. to show more attention to the order and to clarify what the representatives of Jerry’s Pizza meant in advance. Breaking a contract is an extreme measure to which a desperate buyer resorts. A similar case is described with another network of pizzerias, Domino’s, when John McDonald’s company who also initiated the break of the concluded agreement sued the corporation (Domino’s Pizza v. McDonald, 2005). However, in that case, the matter concerned real estate. In the situation of Dazzling Dough Co. and Jerry’s Pizza, it is significant to take into account the factor of misunderstanding. According to Blake, Browne, and Sime (2016), such a reason can be perceived as the erroneous omission of a certain nuance. Nevertheless, in the dispute under discussion, it was the inaccurate interpretation that became the basis of the conflict, and additional clarifications could have helped to avoid it.
Recommendations
As settlement options that can be applied in this case, the seller, that is, Dazzling Dough Co. can add some dough so that the second party (Jerry’s Pizza) could be satisfied. Also, as an alternative, it is possible to refuse to pay for controversial goods and appeal the decision to the appropriate authorities. In order to reach an agreement and resolve the dispute, the discussion of the current situation between the representatives of the two companies may be organized. As Moore (2014) remarks, interest-based negotiation procedures can be useful for both parties. In case this measure does not help, a court case should be instituted. The parties “may agree to binding arbitration of a contract dispute” (“Breach of contract and lawsuits,” 2018, para. 7). Therefore, there are several ways to resolve the current conflict.
Visualization of the Conflict and Its Parties’ Activities
References
Blake, S. H., Browne, J., & Sime, S. (2016). A practical approach to alternative dispute resolution (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Breach of contract and lawsuits. (2018). Web.
Domino’s Pizza v. McDonald, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2005)
Moore, C. W. (2014). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.