John B. Dilworth's Commentary on "Shortage of Components"
Author(s):
John B. Dilworth
To begin, here are some specific questions concerning the
case which a corporate lawyer probably would want to raise.
They concern possibly minor details in the contract, which
nevertheless could have a significant impact on the questions
about what Tim Vinson (Head of Quality Control) should do.
Given that this case centers around a specific agreement which
Ruskin Manufacturing has with Parker Products, which sets out
the contractual obligations and conditions of each party, it
seems only reasonable that we should initially get clear on
exactly what those obligations and conditions are.
First, we are told informally that the machines include a
new component which is a replacement for an old component. We
are also told that if the old component were used in the new
machine, Parker would not be getting exactly what it ordered.
It follows from the latter that some part other than the old
part must be used in the new machines.
However, the critical question of exactly what counts as a
'new component' is not yet settled. The 'standard' new
component is in short supply; could Tim Vinson still satisfy
the letter (or perhaps even the spirit) of the contract if he
selects case option #1, of breaking up and regrinding old
components and using them to manufacture substitute new
components? Answer: it almost entirely depends on the specific
language of the contract. (State and federal laws governing
contracts may make some difference too.) If the contract
defines 'new component' so that only the standard new component
would satisfy it, or if a quality clause is included so that
the re-ground parts would not qualify, then Tim is out of luck,
and the moral quandaries laid out in the case apply with full
force.
However, if Ruskin has been given some discretion in the
design and manufacture of the new part, use of the substitute
new part may be contractually permissible according to the
letter of the contract, even though Parker might complain that
its understanding of the agreement had been violated if they
ever find out about the substituted parts. But arguably Ruskin
Manufacturing and Tim Vinson should pick up little blame for
this, because Ruskin could just as well blame themselves for
hiring mediocre lawyers who had left loopholes in the contract.
So if things go this way, Tim is for practical purposes 'home
free'. This well illustrates that even the tiniest
'nit-picking' of a contract can pay off handsomely in terms of
defusing or avoiding moral problems. Certainly this approach
can never give the last word on any moral issue in business
even when it can be used, but it would be foolish not to
explore all of one's contractually permitted actions in a
problematic situation. There is nothing immoral in successfully
preventing a business problem from escalating into a moral
problem.