nd how directly it affected the company he worked for. He obviously felt his conduct did not breach the contract with Yamaha, but that was irrelevant due to the laws of the Restatement (Second) of Agency, which forced loyalty and the business’ best interests into play. His conduct ultimately does reflect on Yamaha and their reputation as a corporation, which was established in the outcome of the case. This case sets a standard on how employees should act while representing the business they work for. Yamaha as a corporation has a duty to the public to promote their business in a mature respectable fashion. When an employee shows his penis at a banquet that is held for a company he represents, appropriate behavior should be carried over to these situations without say. This case shows that employees have an obligation to their employers under given circumstances, and if such behavior is deemed inappropriate, companies have the legal right to terminate a contract. Businesses hire and pay people such as Greip, assuming to carry out duties that will help to make that business more profitable. I do not see how exposing your self at a public banquet can increase a company’s credibility with consumers and profitability as a business, which is exactly why Yamaha did the right thing in terminating Greip. I can not agree more with the court’s decision in denying Greip’s motion for summary judgment. Greip just might not have a lot upstairs if he thought his actions were justified. This case had a positive impact on business for the reason that all employees should, while under contract or agreement, owe social responsibilities and duties for that company they are representing, not only while “on the clock”, but under other circumstances as well. ...
