Summary of the Dispute
In the dispute at hand, the focus is on determining the legitimacy of what was requested by Jerry’s Pizza and the contract sent to Jerry’s by Dazzling Dough Co. The primary source of the dispute between Dazzling Dough Co. and Jerry’s Pizza is the lack of proper communication. Jerry’s Pizza intended to purchase 200 pounds of pizza dough and other items but it failed to indicate whether the 200 pounds was only for the pizza dough or whether it was inclusive of the other elements. Dazzling Dough Co., on its part, did not ask for a clarification on the exact quantities of materials required by Jerry’s Pizza. In the contract, Dazzling outlined that the 200 pounds was for everything inclusive of the pizza dough, desserts, pizza toppings, and soft drinks. Evidently, both parties are at fault for failing to properly communicate about the exact quantities of the products that were required. Although each party had a reasonable interpretation of the contract, there was a lack of detail and proper communication that led to the ultimate misunderstanding. Jerry’s Pizza’s provision of more and detailed information on the exact quantities of each of the products needed and Dazzling Dough’s request for specific instructions on the precise product quantities before coming up with the contract would have prevented the dispute.
Proposed Revisions to Contract Language
The contract should be revised to have it outline the products to be sold and the quantities of each. The agreement ought to state that “Jerry’s Pizza affirms the purchase of 200 pounds of pizza dough, 40 pounds of dessert, 40 pounds of pizza toppings, and 80 litres of soft drink, all for $30,000.” With this contract, both parties would be aware of the specific products to be sold and the specific quantities of each product. Such a contract language would prevent any disagreements between the two parties.
Dazzling has every right to believe that Jerry’s Pizza went through the contract before signing it. Thus, Dazzling’s enforcement of the contractual terms should be based on Jerry’s Pizza’s consent. While Jerry’s Pizza might not have understood the contract, they proceeded to sign and commit to it. A factor that should be considered in this case is social responsibility, whereby entities are required to act while being aware of the consequences of their decisions on other entities (Mann and Roberts 20). Dazzling Dough ought to consider its social responsibility in this case.
A possible settlement option, in this case, is having Dazzling Dough offer the remaining pizza dough quantity to Jerry’s Pizza. Jerry’s Pizza expected to receive 200 pounds of pizza dough meaning that Dazzling Dough should consider adding to the 125 pounds it offered. Also, Dazzling Dough could reimburse Jerry’s Pizza for the difference witnessed in the quantity of pizza dough. The fact that Dazzling Dough provided 75 pounds of other items means that Jerry’s Pizza should consider paying extra money for the remaining 75 pounds of pizza dough desired.
A dispute method that can help resolve the situation at hand is negotiation. Negotiation refers to the process whereby two or more parties in dispute are involved in discussions and make attempts to settle the dispute voluntarily (Hajdú 6). Both Jerry’s Pizza and Dazzling Dough can decide to negotiate to arrive at an agreement regarding the contract and the right product quantities. The two parties can also consider arbitration to resolve the dispute. Arbitration is whereby parties settle on an impartial third party tasked with hearing and deciding on the conflict at hand (Hajdú 8). The only drawback of arbitration is that it would give the decision-making power to a third party and payment for the third party would be required.
Hajdú, József. The methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the sphere of labour law. na, 1998., http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/6976/1/juridpol_054_fasc_008_001-078.pdf. Accessed August 08, 2017.
Mann, Richard A., and Barry S. Roberts. Business law and the regulation of business. Nelson Education, 2015., https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=AHUcCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Contemporary+business+law&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif9bfrt93cAhVsx4UKHcJ1CNw4ChDoAQgsMAE#v=onepage&q=social%20responsibility&f=false. Accessed August 08, 2017.