Case 3.1
The payroll processing issue presents quite a dilemma morally and ethically, as it calls upon one’s integrity with respect to their business clientele and their own employees (Ashcroft, Ashcroft, and Patterson, 134). Making payroll comes with no morally simple solutions. In order for payroll to made as contemplated, the clients will have to be deceived into thinking that the request for funds comes about because a cost reimbursement action has taken place. The alternative of not making payroll, could be seen as violating the duty to compensate employees for the work they have already performed.

The issue of advanced billing has clear moral issues. Cost reimbursement contracts presume that work has already been performed. To submit a cost reimbursement request, absent the underlying action, is morally and ethically wrong, an injustice to the client, and demonstrates a lack of integrity. The organization could try to discuss the situation with the clients and advise them of the circumstances. Even if they cannot modify the nature of the contract payment structure, at least the employees could be told, with all honesty, that the organization tries to fulfill its payroll obligations.

Balancing love, justice and holiness in business, is akin to balancing a three-legged stool (Theology of Work, n.d). In order for a business to act in a biblically correct manner, each of these concepts has to be given close to equal weight, or else, like a stool, it might tip off balance. Holiness, justice, and love should be contemplated together, with service to God, as the overarching point of emphasis. As long as the issues are approached with a loving and honest effort, with morality and ethical obligations intact, the organization can rest assure that good will likely follow, because of its own right actions. Any suffering that might be caused by doing so, will be alleviated by the good that will inevitably follow for doing the ‘right’ thing.

Business Case Problem
In the case at hand, the parties entered in a signed written agreement with the requisite element of consideration, which passed when Leslie conveyed the full $300,000 purchase price as completed by the written and executed contract. This is presumably a “simple” contract between the parties, unless it is drawn up on a special or specific form or under deal (Rae and Wong, 52), as it is in writing, executed by both parties, and sets for consideration to pass from one party in exchange for action by another (Rae & Wong, 48).

The agreement at issue here is a bilateral contract, as the performance of specific acts or actions is contemplated and agreed upon by both parties. Leslie and Wilbur each made promises to one another, which they memorialized in writing, and are obligated to make good on their promises to one another. By contrast, a unilateral contract exists in situations where one party makes an outstanding promise to provide something in exchange for performance by the other. A good example of a unilateral contract is a reward being offered for finding a lost dog. The owner is promising to pay a $50 reward, if a lost dog is found and returned (Rae and Wong, 53-54).

At the time the parties dispute arose, this was supposed to have been an executed contract, as the promise to pay $300,000 for the property was made in exchange for the promise to deliver title (Rae and Wong, 53). Leslie made the agreed upon payment in full and Wilbur defaulted by failing to deliver title as promised. By contrast, an executory contract contemplates promises for actions that are not done immediately.