July at the Multiplex- Ethical Issues
The ethical misconduct portrayed by the Royal Theater by airing commercials in twenty minutes instead of screening of the movie is poor customer service. Ethical conduct requires companies to offer quality service to their customers. It is one way of enhancing a long lasting relationship with their consumers. However, Royal Theater fails to ensure this to its consumers something that amounts to ethical misconduct. Tommy entered into a contract with the movie theater by paying his money in exchange for a movie show. Instead, the movie theater failed to offer services as required leading to injury to Tommy, who ended up living the movie show unsatisfied. A good business acts ethically in all its activities with an aim of ensuring efficiency (Boylan 123).
Looking at this case in ethical perspective, one can clearly conclude that there is an element of customer exploitation from the movie theater. An event whereby a company provides services at a cost and in a way it fails to render that service and consumers have suffered a loss of their money may amount to customer exploitation. The argument is that the client did not receive the right service as per the plans. Such argument is evident in Tommy and Royal Theater case. The service provider received the money to air out the new movie for the client but not commercials. The client feels dissatisfied with the services and leaves his money unused. The client fails to receive the expected service, and he suffers a cost. It is thus clear that Royal Theater exploited the client (Judge 284).
Apart of the act being unethical conduct, it amounts to a breach of a contract. Breach of contract occurs when one party to contract fails to deliver service as required. It is evident in this case because the theater failed to offer service as required. The contract involves offering service at a fee. The fee was paid implying the acceptance of the offer. The failure to provide the service is then a breach of contract on the side of the service provider.
Injustice and Unfairness
Injustice and unfairness are some of the ethical issues that arise in the case of Royal Theater and Tommy. It is unfair and injustice for the movie theater to air commercials for 20 minutes instead of screening the movie direct to the consumer. An investor needs to consider the cost-benefit issue when offering service to its consumers. The cost-benefits analysis requires the investor to offer as service that amounts to the cost involved. The consumer is at the pleasure of receiving justice and fairness from the service provider to enjoy his hard worked money comfortably. In the case at hand, the service provider did not show justice and fairness to Tommy (Boylan 146).
Cost-Benefit Analysis
In a business transaction, cost-analysis benefit is the key guide. Under this analysis, an investor invests his or her money with anticipation of continuous benefits in the future from the money invested. On the other hand, the consumers incur cost in buying a product or service with the aim of earning a benefit from the product or service bought. The case under study clear indicates a scenario where a cost is involved with an expectation of a benefit from the cost. Tommy endured a cost with an anticipation of enjoying the new movie in the town. He paid nine dollars to receive the movie entertainment. However, he fails to receive this benefits as promised instead, a lot of time is spend showing commercials that do not provide any benefit to Tommy. In the end, Tommy leaves before realizing the benefit of his cost something that leads to dispute.
Rights
Consumers have the right to receive quality services from the movie theater. On the other hand, the movie theater has the duty of care to ensure that the consumers get the services they require without any delay. It is worth noting that the Royal Theater infringed the right of Tommy to enjoy the new movie in the theater by wasting time showing commercials. The whole thing amounts to a right to a consumer because both the consumer and the theater owner entered into a binding contract. Under the contract provisions, the movie investor was to offer a specific service to the consumer at a fee. When the consumer paid the amount required, he developed a right that he was to exercise and expect its fulfillment from the theater. Failure to offer the service as required by the consumer breached his right which is unethical conduct. As a matter of fact, the movie theater had a duty of care to protect that right to entertainment to its consumers.
In conclusion, the case shows a high degree of ethical misconduct on the side of Royal Theater. The theater needs to provide its clients with the best services ever to enhance their satisfaction. However, its shows a great of irresponsibility on the side of the investor in service provision. Besides, the investor is taking advantage of his clients’ money to gain profits. It is worth noting that for any cost incurred in business, a benefit must be realized. However, Royal Theater services do not benefit Tommy their client who endured some cost anticipating for proper service. The service provider needs to improve the services to foster consumer satisfaction.
Works Cited
Boylan, Michael. Business Ethics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001. Print.
Judge, Stephen. Business Law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Print.
