The sales representative should always be informed and updated about the manufacturer’s actions. Furthermore, he should have taken an initiative of asking about the availability of the car. Josh should also be considerate enough and settle the contract issue through trust and honesty, a court of law being the last option. He should be fully informed about the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) standardized laws of commerce before taking any action. The ethical issue in this case is based on individual’s assessments and priorities given that the parties arrive at the same mutual …show more content…
The reason is that despite the argument that both parties were based on mutual mistake of fact, one party has the mandate to act and inform before the agreement. The phrase should not be used as an advantage by other parties to capitalize on the other ignorant parties. A person who is fully aware of the condition of the agreement can take an assumption of not knowing and still be categorized on the basis of mutual mistake of fact. The party which puts up a strong argument in the court of law eventually wins no matter the reality of the other