Desperate Air

What would I do if I was in George Nashs position as Vice prexy of Real Estate at awful Air Corporation (a come with in dire financial straits), and my pending deal of Florida property potentially had toxic drive out buried beneath the surface. I ground this to be the least challenging head word posed thus far in terms of my experience ethical beliefs. In this instance I would proceed with the bargain without disclosing the discipline regarding what I had heard rough the toxic boast.Clearly Florida law states that you do non have to undo that in that respect is a hazardous substance on commercial property as farsighted as there is non a fraudulent statement just about the property. Nash did his delinquent diligence by hiring some matchless to do an environmental take. The union hired engraft nothing and a report was submitted to the buyers. Nash in addition consulted his attorney about what should be violated. freshman, the comp any(prenominal) purchasing the property, had the responsibility of performing their own referable diligence.While a substitute walked the property and found nothing, the name did not state whether or not Fledgling did a full environmental study as well. That should have been part of the purchasers process. If you purchase a root word it is your responsibility to hire an just edifice inspector to look at your topographic point and report on its condition. The Fledgling deterrent example had the same responsibility to obtain an impartial environmental study. Had the representative done so, they likely would have discovered the toxic waste. It doesnt matter that the DAC report did not overwhelm the disclosure.Unfortunately Fledglings representative was at switching here in my opinion. The occurrence that Nash prayed about the situation shows that he is not a cold hearted capitalist with only egocentric motivations. Similarities between Desperate Air and the Seglin article are that two executives had t o make choices that they cerebrated would stay fresh their companies from potential financial ruin. Although I believe there are differences in the aim of disclosure (I believe the CEO of the aircraft political party had a financial responsibility to soften his come aboutings to the auditors), the process of deciding what to disclose is similar. twain parties consulted their attorneys whose guidance instructed them that they did not have to disclose the discipline. The motivating factor in some(prenominal) decisions was to nurse the livelihood of their companies. The facts of the information that had been revealed to separately company had not been proven. Had Nash followed the RDCAR process I believe the outcome of his decision whitethorn have been different. Nash did not go finished the process of recognition. There was no mass of stakeholders. He did not even disclose the decreeings to his CEO.There was no chance to find out if withholding the toxicity information wa s something that would make other staff members uncomfortable. Nash did not engage in discovery. There was no attempt to build internal and out-of-door transparency. Fledgling did not have the chance to react to the information. There was a mishap that the sales event would not have progressed if the information on toxic waste had been disclosed. It may have only delayed the sale, just there was no way to find that out. There was no cognition. No one in DAC management or any other DAC staff was presented with a what would you do? scenario that would have spelled out company values. No policy or swear out was cast off into place to deal with the situation. The only action taken was that Nash consulted an attorney. Nash did reflect on the decision, but no one else in the company had the opportunity to do so. Due to the fact that there was no legal earth to disclose the information of toxic waste to Fledgling, and the fact that they failed to do their own due diligence, in th is instance I would stop with Nashs decision to proceed with the sale in order to help protect the financial position of DAC.