I think that MSL did breach the contract with Macy’s. First, their contract was an exclusive agreement, which implies that only Macy’s had tot sole obligation to sell those products apart from MSL and its related conglomerate. This means that at no one time, as long as the contract held, would MSL engage another party in partnership or joint venture, to sell products prescribed under the contract. When MSL decided to get into another contract with JC Penney (JCP) it would be expected that the agreement would diverge from what the other contract had exclusive rights. In the case study, out of the 2500 designs presented to JCP, about 900 fell into categories restricted under the Macy’s exclusive agreement. Hence, MSL was in breach of Macy’s exclusive contract because under the contract, no other company apart from Macy’s and MSL should have possession or rights to sell these 900 designs. It would appear that the MSL was lured to breach the contract by the promise to earn more. While Macy’s accounted for $ 250 million, JCP brandished their agreement to enable MSL earn about $ 500 million, which was double of what the company was yielding from Macy’s (Stewart n. pag.). While this lure lingered, the contract with Macy still held. Under their exclusive agreement, the contract was to end in 2018. However, the case does not offer details on termination of contract agreement in lieu of the agreed date of contract end. Thus, under the current exclusive agreement with Macy’s, MSL was obligated to ensure that any of the products agreed upon under the contract remained exclusive to Macy’s. Despite owning these designs, MSL had to exclusive rights to engage a third party in their sale because the contract was binding (Chynoweth n. pag.). Re... ... middle of paper ... ...ons. Thus, MSL was oppressed by the contract terms. Another challenge emanating from an exclusion clause is the fact that one party is excluded from legal liability should a breach of contract occur. In this case, Macy’s was exempted from legal responsibility. Works Cited Chynoweth, Paul. Study Paper: The Law of Adverse Possession. Britain: Law Lecturers. 2002, Law Lecturers. Web. Feb 25 2014. Macke, Jeff. Breakout: Domestic Diva Dumped! Martha Stewart’s Retail Love Triangle Ends in Tears. Yahoo Finance, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Feb 2014. Herships, Sally. Martha Stewart, Macy’s & the Meaning of ‘Store’. Marketplace, 6 Mar. 2013. Web. 25 Feb 2014. Singsank, James J. Long-Term Contracting Handbook. USA: Defense Logistics Agency. 1989. Print. Stewart, James B. No Ruling in Macy’s v. Penney? Try This. The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2013. Web. 25 Feb 2014.
Tooher, Joycey, ‘Jubilant Jamie and the Elephant Egg: Acquisition of Title by Finding’ (1998) 6 Australian Property Law Journal 117
Kmart, contrarily, entered behind Wal-Mart as the second largest retailer in the United States after Sears’ reign. They, however, suffered a similar affliction to what felled Sears when Kmart ruled discount retail so heavily that they seemed almost unstoppable. However, with lack of solid knowledge on the business’ purpose and Wal-Mart as a strong competitor, there began a steep decline, along with Sears, that led to filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (New York Times 2002).
One look at the common-size income statements for these companies can tell a story. While Jones Apparel Group was lagging at year ended 1998, even with a restructuring charge on Liz Claiborne’s income statement, 1999 was a different story. Huge growth at Jones lead to revenues double of that one year ago while Liz, while increasing, was quickly falling behind. The growth for both of these companies continued into the year ended 2000, but Jones Apparel Group’s results were brilliant compared to Liz Claiborne’s. One billion dollar growth in revenues as well as higher net income is making Jones Apparel Group the company of the future.
Over the years, the American department store has developed and evolved as not only a commercial business but also a cultural institution. While it has weathered many storms and changes since its inception and throughout history, its most predominant enemy has been a change in the lifestyle of the American people (Whitaker, 2013). As the customer’s needs and wants have shifted, department stores have struggled to keep up with demands. It has been argued that the decline of the department store has been ongoing for the last 50 years (Whitaker, 2013). This dissertation aims to understand how the department store has historically played a role in consumer culture and spending, and additionally, how this has evolved and changed in today’s retail market. Although department stores may not be able to take all the credit for inventing modern shopping, they certainly made its conventions and conveniences commonplace. They set a new standard for the way the consumer should expect to be treated, the type of services that should be provided, and the convenience that should attend the process of acquiring the necessities and niceties of life all in one place. They made shopping into a leisure pastime. This environment meant shopping was a means of freedom to look around, pick up objects with no obligations to buy. As one historian remarked, department stores: “encouraged a perception of the building as a public place, where consumption itself was almost incidental to the delights of a sheltered promenade in a densely crowded, middle-class urban space” (Whitaker, 2006). Although this perception and view of the department store has changed over the years, this paper aims to follow the trail of how and why that happened.
With the recent (and seemingly unstoppable) decline of JC Penney and Sears, much internet ink has been spilled lamenting the decline of these companies, while little analysis has been done exploring which retailers, brands, and stores can best profit from this massive outflow of JCPenny’s and Sears’ traditionally-loyal customers. The most obvious contender in this market share version of jump-ball? Kohl’s Corp. After all, Kohl 's, the 4th largest department store in the country, is where we, the consumer, are to “expect great things.” And as a company operating “1,146 stores in 49 states” with a stated “focus on providing excellent value to customers through offering moderately priced, exclusive and national brand apparel”, Kohl 's operates
The retail stores of JC Penney and Sears have face headlines of “Which is Worst: JCP or Sears?” The end maybe near for both companies (Andersen2014). The customers look at the employees like their idiots. The public believes that poor management is the reason for the down fall of these companies. Eddie Lambert and Ron Johnson are the CEO’s of being credited to running these companies with wrong management strategies (Andersen 2014). Ron Johnson who is now the former CEO was highly qualified with his retail instincts tried to run the store like a retail boutique. He never took the time to consult a survey on what the consumer’s thought were and after two years he jeopardized the company (Andersen 2014). Whereas the CEO Eddie Lambert of Sears
Kohl’s also boasts a loyal customer base and strong brand equity. These strengths are critical to offset their weaknesses. Flaws include an imbalance on sales for men’s products and a lacking online presence. (Kohl's Corporation, n.d.) Another way that Kohl’s is actively counterbalancing their negatives is by capitalizing on opportunities. Kohl’s has found that their beauty sections are an immense source of opportunity. As a result, the company is expanding those departments in an effort to capture those sales that would otherwise go elsewhere. (Wahba, 2014) Finally, Kohl’s keeps the knowledge of their threats at the forefront of their decision-making. They understand that their coupon system can be abused and cause profit losses. They also recognize that price wars in their industry can also be very damaging. As a result, they are working towards more secure methods of offering savings and strategically making efforts to remain the leader for price setting. (Wahba,
There is uncertainty surrounding the law in regards to the ownership of property and proprietary estoppel. This paper will deal with these issues by analysing two cases that involve these questions. It will first address Jack’s case and whether the two objects in question are chattels or fixtures; then, it will examine a Laurence’s case and whether he can rely on proprietary estoppel or not. By dealing with the two cases, this paper will clarify questions of what constitutes a chattel or fixture, and in what situations proprietary estoppel may apply.
In 2002, CEO of Levi Strauss, Phil Marineau was faced with a tough decision: whether he should sell product at Wal-Mart. In the last five years, Levi-Strauss had lost sales and had to close US plants to move production to cheaper offshore areas. Levi's really needed to revive the brand image to gain back some lost sales and was using marketing to create new advertisements and product placement to broaden their target market. Levi's had tough competition on every level of the price-point spectrum, whether it be high end retailers like Diesel or Calvin Klein, middle vertically integrated retailers like Gap or American Eagles, and on the bottom, private-label brands like Wal-Mart and Target.
On January 22, 2002, Kmart filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection becoming the largest retailer ever to do so in U.S. history. Most industry analysts attributed the immediate cause of the company's bankruptcy filing to a dull holiday season and stiff competition from WalMart and Target as the chain's more fundamental problem. But competition wasn't the root cause of Kmart's consistently poor performance. The real reason for Kmart's poor performance is that Kmart never had a marketing strategy. Kmart completely misunderstood its market and was positioning itself in the wrong direction. Also, on the strategic side, there are issues of where stores were located. On the whole, Kmart stores did not seem to be sited as well as the stores of the competition. Then there was the issue of technology. While Wal-Mart was becoming the relentless efficiency engine that we know today by investing in technology and streamlining the supply chain, Kmart held back. As Wal-Mart developed an infrastructure that enabled it to lower prices, Kmart slipped into a price disadvantage. This paper discusses these strategic problems that led to Kmart's poor performance.
JCPenney is a chain of American mid-range department stores that is based out of Texas that started over 100 years ago. JCPenny has been successful for most of its time up until the last three to four years. The company is trying relentlessly to overcome the lingering effects of the makeover that former CEO, Ron Johnson, had implemented in order for the company to take a new direction in hopes of increasing sales. The new CEO, Myron Ullman, has taken a close look into the markets demographic segmentation along with the income segmentation in order to attempt to return the retailer back to its old self, which is to appeal to middle-market customers. A couple issues of major concern for the company are the dissolving of Johnson’s Boutiques, the price of their products, and overall revenue.
Even though Wal-Mart has helped raised international standards in supply chain management in the industry, it does make Wal-Mart’s unethical methods acceptable. In the first three months of a year, Wal-Mart’s revenues triple compared to companies, such as Target. They have the money and resources to follow all labor rights. Wal-Mart is a great example of how multinational companies that have the power to do just about anything that they want. They think of ways to avoid paying for their expenses. They encourage other companies to use labor overseas just so they can continue to supply up to Wal-Mart demands. Wal-Mart continues to use unethical practices regardless of how much criticism they receive, therefore, consumers need to think about what they are supporting the next time they shop there.
Michael Scholz, CEO of M&J Cosmetics, is tailor-made for this opportunity because he has taken Introduction to Business Online. Other members of the management team include:
Penney must take into account all these factors while trying to rediscover its core values with a new strategy. This new "come back" strategy is to reverse J.C. Penney’s recent decline; thus, prompting the retailer to first focus on shareholder value and shareholder return, which is vital in regaining the trust in the company (Garcia, 2016). In addition, J.C. Penney will be partnering and housing more brands (e.g., Sephora) (Garcia, 2016). There are also redesign plans for sunglasses, jewelry, and accessories sections (Garcia, 2016). Moreover, the most important reform for CEO Marvin Ellison is hiring the right candidate, such as ecommerce executives, supply chain executives, and marketing leaders (Garcia,
Leslie was just looking for a partnership that help her to expand even more her brand, one of the sharks offer to her $100,000 and 20% of the company and help her to expand to stores sales that she have never reach before, and she negotiated the prices but at the end Leslie accepted the