Just because you can doesn’t mean you should (2:237)

[2:237] If you divorce them before touching them, but after you had set the dowry for them, the compensation shall be half the dowry, unless they voluntarily forfeit their rights, or the party responsible for causing the divorce chooses to forfeit the dowry. To forfeit is closer to righteousness. You shall maintain the amicable relations among you. GOD is Seer of everything you do.

This verse shows me that even though someone may have the right in a contract to take advantage of the other party, doesn’t mean you should if it isn’t the ethical thing to do. Often times in a contract one party may have the upper hand in the discussion, as submitters we should first off ask ourselves what would be most pleasing to God and not how can I get my greatest share.

The Art of The Deal: Is Ethics in The Picture?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbclRU40OZc

In two contrasting examples Costco and Apple both have very strict contracts with their vendors. But while both negotiate very shrudley with their suppliers, Costco has been known to not allow their suppliers to bring their prices below a certain level because they are concerned that their supplier would not be able to justify operations below a certain margin. Apple on the other hand has been known to do the opposite and take their vendors to bankruptcy to meet their aggressive price targets.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-apple-sapphire-supplier-gtat-went-bankrupt-2014-11

“According to Squiller, Apple wanted to buy a massive number of sapphire furnaces, before changing the terms of their partnership:

At the outset of negotiations, Apple had offered GTAT what would have been the company’s largest sale ever: an order for 2,600 sapphire growing furnaces…In hindsight, it is unclear whether Apple ever intended to purchase any sapphire furnaces from GTAT. Indeed, after months of extensive negotiations over price and related terms, Apple demanded a fundamentally different deal.

The immediate cause of GTAT’s bankruptcy was the company’s inability to produce sapphire that Apple would accept. But considering the risks Apple was asking GTAT to take, it’s no surprise the deal fell through.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-elpida-idUSTRE81Q0OQ20120227

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s