Rаchel is а pоpulаr chef. She was recently hired tо hоst a new prime time cooking show—Rays of Rachel. She was paid $250,000 for each episode. The show was a ratings success. Anxiousto continue the relationship, Jeff, the network president, sent an email to Rachel that stated i pertinent part: The network hereby offers to pay you $2.5 million to host 10 episodes of Rays of Rachel over the next six months. * * * You may accept this offer by return email indicating your consent or printingthis email and faxing it back to us. Please respond by the end of the day. Jeff ZisserPresident, MAB TelevisionLos Angeles, CA(o) (555) 555-1234(f) (555) 555-1235 Rachel read the email and immediately called Jeff. Rachel told Jeff that she would not do the shows for less than $3.5 million. She also said that she wanted her lawyer to review the contract before she signed. Jeff agreed to the pay increase and told Rachel that her lawyer could look at the contract as long as she decided to sign or not sign by the end of the day. He told her that if she agreed, she should print the email, handwrite the new salary figure in, initial the change, sign the contract, and fax it to him by the end of the day. Rachel immediately forwarded the email to her lawyer, who gave his approval. She then followed Jeff’s instructions. She printed the email, wrote in the new salary figure, initialed the change, and signed and dated the contract. She then put the signed agreement into an envelope addressedto Jeff and dropped the letter in the mail. Later that day, Rachel turned down a $2 million offer to do a cooking show for another network. The next day, since Jeff had not heard from Rachel, he assumed that the deal was off and called another chef—his good friend Paula, who was dean of a local cooking school. He offered to give her a prime time cooking show and to pay her $50,000 per episode. She quickly agreed. Two days later, Jeff received Rachel’s letter in the mail. He also saw an article on a television gossip website explaining how Rachel had just turned down a $2 million cooking show to work at MAB. Having gone to law school before becoming a television executive, Jeff became worried about his transactions with Rachel and contacted MAB’s legal department. He related to them all of the above facts, and asked whether the network has a contract with, or liability to, Rachel. How should the legal department advise him? Be sure to fully explain your reasoning.
The mоst cоmmоn diuretic is
Yоu cаn't influence withоut pоwer.
Jоrdаn wоrks аs а prоduct incident analyst for a large consumer electronics company. Part of Jordan’s role is to review internal reports when customers experience device failures or malfunctions. After a series of complaints involving overheating batteries, Jordan’s boss instructs them to classify the incidents as “isolated misuse” rather than “systemic defect,” noting that the evidence meets the company’s internal criteria for that classification. The decision is legal, aligns with industry standards, and would prevent the company from issuing a public warning or delaying upcoming product shipments. Jordan knows that while no serious injuries have been reported, internal testing suggests the issue may worsen over time and could affect more users under normal conditions. Reclassifying the incidents would not involve falsifying data, but it would significantly reduce the likelihood of further investigation or customer notification. Jordan’s boss emphasizes that Jordan is not responsible for product design or long-term outcomes—only for applying established review standards consistently and keeping operations on schedule. As Jordan prepares to submit the final classification, the conflict intensifies. Approving the decision would protect the company and fulfill Jordan’s role as an agent. Yet Jordan is troubled by the knowledge that customers may continue using the product without understanding the risks involved. Jordan struggles with whether responsibility can be limited to procedural compliance, or whether knowingly minimizing foreseeable harm—while acting under instruction—creates moral accountability that cannot be passed upward. Please address the following questions in your answer: Based on the three characteristics of God we’ve discussed this semester, what should Jordan do? Based on (one of) the four human-based ethical systems we’ve discussed this semester, what should Jordan do? If you were in Jordan’s shoes, what would you do? Share about your personal ethical framework and how this would impact your decision making in this scenario. Describe your stance on the agency problem based on your response to this scenario.