None Provided20, Business, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Business

None Provided20

None Provided20 Yamaha Motor Co. U.S.A., Inc. Defendant Defendant Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., Inc. (“Yamaha”) promotes its snowmobile products by sponsoring Yamaha’s Snowcross Race Team. Race team members represent Yamaha during the racing events. Yamaha employed plaintiff Geoffrey Greip to work as a fulltime mechanic on Yamaha’s racing team for the 1998-99 race season. Greip and Yamaha entered a written, one year employment agreement that expired on June 1, 1999. Greip earned $2,692.30 per month under this agreement. In the evening of February 21, 1999, sponsors of the race held an awards banquet attended by hundreds of people. Greip and other members of the race team sat at a long table with people associated with other teams. Greip began joking “back and forth” with a woman at the end of the table and it culminated into what Greip described as a “show me, dare me” type of thing. Greip dared the woman, “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”. Greip then stood up, unbuckled and unzipped his pants, and opened them up for the woman to see. After the awards banquet, team members told Yamaha’s snowmobile coordinator Greip’s bad behavior at the banquet. He investigated the reports by talking to witnesses he could locate. Eckstrom, the manager of the Arctic Cat team Muetz that Greip had embarrassed Yamaha by exposing his penis at the awards banquet. Muetz, the snowmobile coordinator, discharged Greip from his employment with Yamaha, and was terminated. Greip admitted to exposing himself, during this conversation, and said he wanted to “express himself and gain attention for himself”. As a result of his termination Greip received $8,937 in unemployment compensation benefits. Because Greip’s total damages alleged in his complaint exceeded $75,000 at the time, the case was removed. There are several different topics that must be looked at when dealing with this case, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit. It is illegal for a company to discriminate or terminate an employee for no specified reason when under a written valid agreement or contract. These two parties, Greip and Yamaha, did have a valid binding contract since there was an agreement, consideration, contractual capacity, and legality. The question is whether which party, Greip or Yamaha, breached the contract. “Breach of contract is defined as the failure, without legal excuse, of a promisor to perform the obligations of the contract (West’s p.201).” Greip alleges that Yamaha’s termination of his employment was in violation of the terms of his written Employment Agreement. Those terms provided that either party could terminate the Agreement for any reason by giving 60 days notice to the other party. The agreement did not provide for immediate termination, which occurred. Greip argued that his termination was improper since he was not warned beforehand that his behavior at the banquet could result in immediate termination. Fundamental principles of contract law gave Yamaha the legal right to terminate Greip’s employment under these outrageous circumstances. This is where the concept of social responsibility helps to determine who exactly was in breach of contract. Yamaha, as a worldwide corporation in manufacturing and retail, have a responsibility to its consumers, competition, and fellow employers. That responsibility is to uphold a respectable reputation in it product’s, services, and everyday business interactions. Employees also have a responsibility to their employer’s in carrying out duties for the company in the ways that company see fit. All employees owe a duty of loyalty, performance, notification, obedience, and accounting to their agent. “Section 1(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Agency defines agency as fiduciary relation, which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act in his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act(West’s p.572n).” Greip had a social duty to act for Yamaha’s benefit in any matters relating to business associated with Yamaha. Consistent with this duty of loyalty, Greip had an obligation not to engage in conduct that would jeopardize the best interests of his employer, which he flagrantly avoided when he decided to flash the woman at the table. Yamaha was justified in terminating Greip on the basis of his admission of his conduct that it “was not a big deal”. Under these circumstances Yamaha did not breach the Agreement, so summary judgment was granted on Greip’s breach of contract claim. Greip also did remodeling work on the Yamaha facility in Minnesota, which he bases his unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims on. Quantum meruit means “as much as he deserves” and is the extent of compensation owed under a quasi contract, or contract implied by law. Greip alleges he is owed extra pay for his services, but “there can be no recovery in quantum meruit where a valid express contract between the parties exists”(LexisNexis). So the written Agreement between Greip and Yamaha voids Greip’s quasi-contractual claim for extra pay of the service of remodeling the facility and as a result, his unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims fail. Concluding the case, Yamaha’s motion for summary judgment is granted and Greip’s is denied. The impact on how this case affected law was not as great as the impact it had on business. The only questionable motive in this case dealing with law was Greip’s flagrant flashing actions and 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. Bibliography:

Word Count: 1180