ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict

ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict Introduction Business conflicts are inevitable. Conflicts may range from small disagreements to big and costly disagreements. Sometimes, if left unattended, minor conflicts may easily become major conflicts, thereby creating devastating consequences for the parties involved.Advertising We will write a custom article sample on ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Businesses may suffer reputational damage, time and resource wastage, and the loss of future investment opportunities (among other ramifications) from business conflicts (Davis, 2012). To avoid these consequences, many businesses prefer to avoid conflict altogether, as opposed to solving them. However, some businesses are unsuccessful in doing so. The Trump Organization is one such entity that has failed to avoid conflict in the last decade. This article delves into the intrigues of a recently concluded dispute between th e organization and New York-based licensing firm, ALM Unlimited. This paper explains the details of the conflict, including the cost of the conflict, the resolution of the conflict, and the undertones of the disagreement. The Case Informed of its role in helping the flamboyant real estate developer, Donald Trump, to secure a lucrative clothing contract with Phillips-Van Heusen (PVH) Company, ALM Unlimited named the Trump Organization in a lawsuit for unlawful termination of remittances to its organization (Clarke, 2013). In its defense, the Trump Organization claimed it had wrongfully remitted payments to ALM Unlimited. The company also said its payment to ALM Unlimited was supposed to be a one-off payment (McCoy, 2011). Moreover, according to Donald Trump, ALM Unlimited played a minimal role in helping the Trump Organization to secure the multimillion-dollar contract with PVH. In his submissions at a New York court, Donald Trump revealed that his company had received above $3,000,0 00 in royalties from the contentious deal (Clarke, 2013).Advertising Looking for article on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Cost of the Conflict The cost of conflict is the amount of money a party aims to gain or lose from a business conflict. However, Davis (2012) says that when businesses are in conflict, the cost of the conflict often transcends the amount of money quoted in lawsuits, or the fees paid out to the lawyers. Instead, he says, â€Å"The financial and emotional effects, wasted time, and lost productivity of businesses and individuals contribute to the overall costs of conflict† (Davis, 2012, p. 32). An overexposure of conflict may further lead to more damages, especially when the warring parties have to do business with other companies. Observers have said that the conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited transcends the cost of litigation (McCoy, 2011). They argue that the Trump Organization largely bases its success from the strength of the â€Å"Trump† brand. Therefore, an overexposure of the brand to business conflict paints a bad picture for the company because it hurts the business. McCoy (2011) affirms this fact when he says overexposure is bad for business because other organizations will be hesitant to do business with a defamed brand. Despite the merit of these arguments, this paper acknowledges the importance of understanding conflict on a case-by-case basis. Stated differently, the business conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited presents unique dynamics that inform its cost of conflict. Concisely, based on the arguments advanced by the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited, the amount of contention was about $75,000 annually. This is the cost of the conflict. This figure comes from the amount of money paid by the Trump organization to ALM Unlimited (since the two parties started business). In detail, since the Trump organization entered into the clothing business with Phillips-Van Heusen, it has paid about $350,000 to ALM. The organization made these payments between 2004 and 2008 when it stopped the payments (this has been a four-year stretch).Advertising We will write a custom article sample on ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization. Business Conflict specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Based on calculations of the amount received by ALM international over the four-year stretch, the company wanted periodical payments of $75,000 annually. Resolution of Conflict Businesses choose to resolve conflicts in different ways. Some choose to resolve conflicts through personal agreements (business-to-business agreements); others choose to identify an arbitrator to mediate the conflict, while many businesses seek a legal solution to conflict resolution. The conflict between the Trump Organization and ALM Unlimited ended through a legal solu tion. A Supreme Court judge, based in New York, ruled that the Trump Organization had no case to answer in the above-mentioned business conflict (Clarke, 2013). The judge sidestepped a sitting jury, which heard the case for close to a week, by issuing a direct order that dismissed the case because of lack of sufficient evidence to show that the two organizations had a binding contract. This ruling ended the four-year conflict. Conclusion It is often difficult to predict the ramifications of business conflicts, or their end. However, for ALM Unlimited and the Trump Organization, their conflict was resolved through legal means, without any serious ramifications for any of the parties. The resolution of conflict through the courts should however be regarded as a last resort for doing so because less expensive and expeditious methods exist for solving such conflicts (outside courts). Arbitration is one example of an inexpensive and expeditious process for solving business conflicts. Non etheless, regardless of the nature or magnitude of business conflicts, they should be resolved expeditiously because delaying the conflict resolution process only worsens the outcome. References Clarke, K. (2013). The Donald Triumphs at Trial over Clothing Royalties. Web. Davis, P. (2012). A model for strategy implementation and conflict resolution in the franchise business. Strategy Leadership, 40(5), 32 – 38.Advertising Looking for article on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More McCoy, K. (2011). Donald Trump Faces Lawsuits over Business Deals. Web.

Kylie Masshardt Essays (496 words) - Military History By Country

Kylie Masshardt Essays (496 words) - Military History By Country Kylie Masshardt 3rd period March 27,2016 World War 1 Weaponry Between July 28 of 1914 to November 11 of 1918 a four-year world war broke out around the globe. With more than 15 participating nations and empires, many advancements in various fields were inevitable. There were many contributing factors as to why the war broke out, but one aspect that is often placed aside is the importance of the weapons utilized during the war. There were hundreds of weapons that made an appearance in the war, some of which include: poison gas, tanks, and machine guns. How these three specific weapons played a role in the war varies from each weapon and nation using them. April of 1915, the Germans introduced poison gas at the second battle of Ypres. Chlorine was the first gas used, killing hundreds of French troops. As the war progressed so did the usage of poison gas. Beginning as only chlorine, many gases began making their way onto the battle field. Introduced a few years later was phosgene and mustard gas, which blinded those who came in contact with it. By the year 1917 poison gas could be delivered with better accuracy with the use of chemical shells and mortars. By the end of the war there was an estimated of one million casualties due to poison gas. In addition to poison gas, tanks, or "land battleships," were introduced in the first world war. At the orders of Winston Churchill on September 1916, the tank would make its first appearance in the war. Initially, the tank was built with the intent of being indestructible to the machine gun fire, and their tracks would be able to cross rugged terrain, trenches, as well as barbed-wire. Although the tanks weekend enemy morals, they had faults. The tanks were slow and endured many mechanical problems. As stated by Mr.Bronsnan,"[] tanks were more reliable and available to British forces in greater number." Lastly, the machine. The machine gun wasn't a new weapon though. American, Hiram Maxim, had invented the gun that bore his name in 1884 but it was later altered and refined and made easier to carry. Making it more reliable and even deadlier across the expanses of "no man land" that separated the two sides on the Western Front. Germany also endured a type of machine gun, the Maschinegewehr 08. It had been based on the Maxim gun, it could fire 400 hundred rounds a single minute. The machine gun allowed for a faster more efficient war to be fought. In conclusion, many weapons had been introduced or utilized during the first world war. These weapons allowed for certain advantages and progressions in future weaponry. There were hundreds of weapons that made an appearance in the war, some of which include: poison gas, tanks, and machine guns. How these three specific weapons played a role in the war varies from each weapon and nation using them.