The example of the business case concerning IBM and Niels Jensen is a controversial one. There was a brochure – a written proof of the work proposal and a conducted deal. What is more, a quota letter can help during the case investigation. The case deals with unilateral contracts – one-sided acts in which the offerer should pay a reward for conducted work. Still, some problems are arising in terms of comprehension of such contracts. Although such kind of a deal is not stable and can be presented from different perspectives, there are possible solutions to the problem. In the particular case, it is fair to state, that the unilateral contract was created despite all the factors, as the employee had agreed to work and closed a successful deal.
It is fair to hold, that sides created the contract, as there was an agreement between the employer and employee. Even though the company did not intend to create such a contract, IMB presented an offer. Once work was to be done, particular norms should have been established. A unilateral contract is a one-side act with open inquiries and a payment; hence the contract law is enforced in such a case (Young, 2019). Such kind of a contract includes the employer’s obligation to pay the promised sum of money; otherwise, the offeree can demand compensation at court (Young, 2019). The open agreement can provide the employee with work and salary once he had agreed to conduct a task.
As far as the sides must have discussed the working conditions and Jensen commenced his work, there was a unilateral contract created. Additionally, regarding the evidence of the conducted work, for instance, sale contracts and transaction acts, there was an agreement between the employer and employee. It is possible and fair to state at the court that the quota letter was one of the base documents for creating the contract, as it is direct proof of the cooperation and specific norms established.
The statement that the manager decides if the adjustments to the payment are appropriate does not influence the answer to the previous question, and it would be ethical to state that the contract was established despite these factors. Even if the manager decides the appropriate adjustments to the payments, Jensen has closed a significant transaction, so the sum must be higher than the established in quota letter one. The unilateral contract exists, and it is enforced by law once there is a mutual agreement to cooperate, and the offeree provided the result of his work (Garcia, 2017). Additionally, the brochure should be taken into consideration. There is the information about the norms of payment provided, in such a way, a contradiction in terms of salary details can result in the law violation.
Generally, Niels Jensen has a right to demand the actual sum he earned, as there is plenty of evidence to prove, that the unilateral contract was established. First of all, the contract gains its power as soon as the sides agreed to cooperate. Regarding ethics, the proposal is a controversial one, as the information is provided in a way that the company violates its promise. There was a proposal with accurate information about the salary, and the employee agreed to conduct work. Moreover, the income he has made for the company is an essential aspect as well.
References
- Young, J. (2019). Unilateral Contract. Investopedia. Web.
- Garcia, F. J. (2017). Unilateral Acts. Oxford bibliographies. Web.