Portfolio Project BBM460
Chapter 3: Supply Order C
aseBoth the parties, that is, Maximize, Inc, and Our-Parts-Are-Best, Inc, have a history of working together before. This fact will significantly affect the direction in which the potential negotiation may take. Maximize Inc. are accustomed to doing business at about $350,000, subject to the discount of 2% owing to their longevity of doing business with their partner. This is a business arrangement they would want to maintain, even as they negotiate a new contract. Thus, this may or may not be a source of conflict as they approach the negotiation period in the sense that Our-Parts-Are-Best, Inc may want to rescind the arrangement and deal with their partner according to market rates. Additionally, the fact that Our-Parts-Are-Best, Inc has quoted the price of the mooted contract at $500,000 indicates that they may be adopting the positional approach of negotiating by quoting an initial position. This approach is latently conflict-generating as the parties will primarily haggle over positions rather than considering the interests that they both hold in the transaction.
Chapter 9: Injury Accident Case
Perception is all about how a negotiator understands the opposing party’s thinking to interpret their interests and intentions as objectively as you can, while also portraying yourself positively to gain the trust of your counterparts (Jagodzinska, 2016). In the present case, my perception of Leroy Bell and the perception I want to project to him would affect our ability to generate complementary solutions to the issue. The starting point is to discern the interests of the opposing party as well as my interests. My perception is that Mr. Bell desires to avoid prolonged litigation, and the possibility of settling a mandatory judgment sum if I win the lawsuit, which appears likely since the only witnesses to the accident will testify in my favor. He is, thus, wholly committed to settling the matter out of court. In any event, his wife’s illness is exerting much psychological pressure on him, and he would gladly prefer to avoid the additional stress of litigation. In sum, I perceive Mr. Bell to be genuine about the settlement, as opposed to using it as a delay tactic to defeat the ends of justice. This will urge me to be similarly devoted to the process of finding an amicable solution.
My interests are equally clear to me. There is much information regarding the accident circumstances that I would like to keep as a secret. Proceeding to litigation may likely expose the information, much to my detriment. Hence, negotiating a settlement also caters to my covert interests. Overtly, my interests are also to avoid prolonged litigation while securing a satisfactory compensation for my injuries and the costs of treatment. Therefore, I would project a perception of confidence in my chances of succeeding at litigation and a commitment to the success of negotiation.
My covert interest will form the basis of my bottom line in the negotiation. I intend to recoup the costs of treatment, which stand at $250,000. In any case, I would probably get a higher award in court damages, even after factoring any contributory negligence that may be found on my part. The concept of the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is about an equally or more appealing deal to the one being negotiated (Sebenius, 2017). My BATNA would be the amount I am claiming in the lawsuit: $7,500,000, or a figure within that range. However, I am unlikely to insist on this BATNA because of the dire consequences the court process may have on my career and marriage. However, a figure above my bottom line of $250,000 is possible given that my case appears healthy and because of social factors weighing in on Mr. Bell.
Chapter 10: Divorce
The outcome of the negotiation will be pegged on each party’s perception of the strength of their case in court and the chances of success. Currently, the home title is under Manny’s name, giving him an upper hand in any claim for it. Thus, he is likely to be bullish in his approach to negotiation. The only weakness of his case is that his acquisition of the title may be found defective in terms of procedure.
Notably, the second transfer that vested the entire home to Manny was done without consideration, which may vitiate the contract (Giancaspro, 2019). However, it may be argued that the outstanding mortgage, which Manny later paid, was the consideration for the transfer. However, these legal questions will serve as Wilma’s strength in the negotiations. Additionally, by highlighting to Manny that the court may cancel the deed of ownership for the defectiveness, she may pressure Manny into agreeing to a favorable settlement. Nonetheless, Manny’s claim appears firmer because the contract between himself and Wilma was made with either express or implicit consent of both parties, and no instances of fraud are observable. Resultantly, the courts would likely protect the equitable interest of Manny to the property, even if the legal right may be wanting. The parties can reconcile the dispute by finding a mutual solution that ensures that each party recovers the sum they spent on the house’s acquisition.
Chapter 14: Steps for preparing to negotiate
The first step is brainstorming. I would think about the possible angles of approaching the problem in a way that secures the possibility of a suitable outcome. Secondly, I will determine what my interests are in the whole process. My interest is to avoid the possibility of receiving an unfavorable judgment against Erica’s clients. This is my top-most need because it may have an effect on other matters with the defendants. My other aim is to avoid the time-wastage of litigation. On the flipside, Erica’s client knows that if the lawsuit turns out against her, she may be left with as low as $50,000 in assets. Thus, she appreciates the need to explore negotiation, and there lie her needs and interests: to avoid the substantial and far-reaching risks of litigation. While both agree on the need to settle the matter out of court, we may disagree on the amount payable as compensation. This component will depend on the powers that we both possess. My strength lies in the knowledge of the amount of damages we may receive from the court and its effect on my counterpart’s financial health. Conversely, my counterpart’s strength lies in knowing the impact of a negative outcome of my case. These respective powers are real and will be applied in securing a favorable outcome for each party. However, the underlying interest is that we receive fair compensation while not bankrupting Erica’s client. The available alternative for both of us is to await the outcome of the court process. This alternative is not attractive to me, given the circumstances.
Judging on the above information, so much is at stake, and negotiation serves to mitigate these risks. My bottom line in the talks will be $300,000. However, I would not be fixated on this amount for the interests of getting a good deal. I would highlight to my counterpart that the court process would bankrupt her and that the only chance she stands is negotiating. My opening position would be $1,000,000, while my second position will be $600,000. My worst position is $300,000. I anticipate my opponents to counteroffer with $500,000, having regard to her financial health. My alternative approach is to have discussions on payment of the negotiated sum either in installments or in full, depending on the amount agreed. My plan and strategy are to be cooperative rather than competitive with my opponent. The end goal is to find a mutually agreeable solution that fulfills our interests. Thus, this can only be achieved through such principled negotiations.