Critical Thinking
The evidence provided by Fluormatic was unacceptable because the company has been in business and is well aware of the requirements of negotiable instruments it has been using. Since this is not the first time for the business, it demonstrates that Fluormatic brought the action to court with the intention of defrauding the other party. UCC 3-104(a) stipulates that negotiable devices have to promise or order payment to be completed in a state currency such as Japanese yen, euros, English pounds, United States dollars among other national currencies (Kubasek, 2016). In this case, Fluormatic issued notes in U.S dollars and sometimes endorsed the drafts in Deutsche marks, which constitute national currencies. For the argument to be seen as acceptable to the court, the company ought to have met the truth-in-saving-act whereby DFID ought to have provided notification of any limitations on withdrawals or deposits. That way, Fluormatic can demonstrate that it was not aware of the bank’s limitation on withdrawals or deposits that made DIF Bank to dishonor the drafts.
Ethical Decision Making
Fluormatic’s defense was not strong and the efficiency value could have led the Fluormatic to opt to resolve the issue with DIF bank as opposed to taking the matter in court. Efficiency value seeks to minimize costs and obtain the most from a particular output. In reference to Fluormatic, taking the matter to court is expensive because the company had to hire attorneys and the process took time. The issue would have taken fairly minimal time if the company opted to settle the matter with DIF. Settling the matter with DIF Bank serves as an alternative means of dispute resolution.
The evidence provided by Fluormatic was unacceptable because the company has been in business and is well aware of the requirements of negotiable instruments it has been using. Since this is not the first time for the business, it demonstrates that Fluormatic brought the action to court with the intention of defrauding the other party. UCC 3-104(a) stipulates that negotiable devices have to promise or order payment to be completed in a state currency such as Japanese yen, euros, English pounds, United States dollars among other national currencies (Kubasek, 2016). In this case, Fluormatic issued notes in U.S dollars and sometimes endorsed the drafts in Deutsche marks, which constitute national currencies. For the argument to be seen as acceptable to the court, the company ought to have met the truth-in-saving-act whereby DFID ought to have provided notification of any limitations on withdrawals or deposits. That way, Fluormatic can demonstrate that it was not aware of the bank’s limitation on withdrawals or deposits that made DIF Bank to dishonor the drafts.
Ethical Decision Making
Fluormatic’s defense was not strong and the efficiency value could have led the Fluormatic to opt to resolve the issue with DIF bank as opposed to taking the matter in court. Efficiency value seeks to minimize costs and obtain the most from a particular output. In reference to Fluormatic, taking the matter to court is expensive because the company had to hire attorneys and the process took time. The issue would have taken fairly minimal time if the company opted to settle the matter with DIF. Settling the matter with DIF Bank serves as an alternative means of dispute resolution.
