It is now 2015, and Smithfield’s Custom Furniture has continued to grow. Its new product line of lower-priced
furniture was an immediate sensation in the marketplace. The company now has 344 stores and 21,000
employees. The company now has a total of 12 international retail stores evenly divided among Spain (3),
France (3), Germany (3), and England (3).
Margot Smithfield, Jonas Smithfield III’s only heir, is now running the company. She has a master’s degree in
design and an MBA degree. She has been running the company for 3 years.
Margot Smithfield and the 12-member board of directors have been assessing an opportunity to acquire You
Figure it Out, a moderately profitable 51 store chain of ultra-modern furniture. The furniture and furniturerelated accessories of You Figure it Out are all made in China and sold only in the United States. Their retail
stores are located in Texas (6), California (13), New York (15), Nevada (4), Florida (9), and North Carolina (4).
Margot and her board have reasoned that the company has excess capacity at their 5 manufacturing plants.
They are aware that producing a new line of furniture would mean retraining several hundred of their workers in
the new production process. However, if this change is successfully executed it would significantly increase the
profitability of the You Figure It Out brand. The company also sees a market for the ultra-modern style of
furniture in Smithfield’s existing foreign markets and believe the current Smithfield stores in Spain, France,
Germany, and England could display some of the new furniture along with their traditional lines of furniture and
take orders that would be produced in the US plants. Other than that, the Smithfield Custom Furniture product
line and the You Figure It Out brand would operate as they currently do.
They have decided to conclude the purchase with You Figure It Out executives and want to announce the
decision to their workforce as soon as possible.
The Management Issue: Margot Smithfield is concerned she will overlook something important in her
communications to employees and the decision-making of the board.
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).>GET ANSWER