Simulation - II

Kalinga is a cruise ship which caters to the wealthy tourists in the AP, Telangana & Kerala, the capacity of the ship is 3000 members. Their customers are exclusively the rich and famous and can pay up to Rs. 4, 00,000 for a 7 day holiday trip. Because of the elite nature of the cruises, customers expect every facility to be perfect.

Kalinga entered into a contract with Charminar meat suppliers (CMS), which specialise in organic and smoked meat operate throughout India. CMS has agreed to provide Kalinga with all of their meat throughout their cruise dates. The two Parties agreed in advance that fresh produce would be provided three times per week, depending on the specific requirement of that ship.

One day evening when chef began to prepare the food, they noticed the meat had gone off and could not be used. As a result all the guests on board were provided with the vegetarian menu option. Another day insufficient food supplied.

Kalinga felt humiliated by this slip-up. As a result of the sub-standard produce provided by CMS, they were forced to issue guests with apology vouchers entitling them to 20% off their trip, a potential cost of Rs.25,00,000. If every guest on board took advantages of this offer, Kalinga could lose a significant amount of profit. Kalinga is claiming that this loss is a direct result of CMS failure to proper care for their produce. Kalinga and CMS have agreed to meet in Vijayawada to discuss the issue.

A discussion is required on whether CMS should contribute to Kalinga’s losses and how the working relationship should continue in future.

Negotiate the matter and make necessary arrangements.

Solution:

In this scenario, Kalinga has suffered financial losses due to the sub-standard produce provided by Charminar meat suppliers (CMS) which they had contracted to provide fresh meat for their cruise guests. Kalinga has issued apology vouchers to their guests and is claiming that CMS should contribute to their losses. Here are some steps that could be taken to negotiate and make necessary arrangements:

1. Meeting between Kalinga and CMS: The first step would be to hold a meeting between Kalinga and CMS in Vijayawada to discuss the issue. Both parties should come to the meeting well-prepared and ready to listen to each other's perspectives.

2. Assessing the damages: During the meeting, Kalinga should present the facts and figures about the losses they incurred due to the sub-standard meat provided by CMS. This should include the cost of the vouchers issued and any other financial impact. CMS should also be given the opportunity to respond and explain their side of the story.

3. Determining liability: After hearing both sides of the story, the parties should determine whether CMS was at fault for the damages incurred by Kalinga. If CMS was responsible, they should be willing to accept responsibility and offer to make restitution to Kalinga.

4. Future working relationship: The parties should also discuss the future working relationship between Kalinga and CMS. If CMS is willing to take responsibility for their mistakes and make amends, Kalinga may be willing to continue working with them. However, if CMS is not willing to make amends or if Kalinga feels that they cannot trust CMS to provide quality products, Kalinga may need to consider finding a new supplier.

5. Negotiating a settlement: If CMS is willing to make restitution, the parties can negotiate a settlement to cover Kalinga's losses. This settlement could take the form of a lump sum payment or a reduction in the price of the meat provided to Kalinga going forward.

6. Putting it in writing: Once the parties have reached an agreement, it should be put in writing and signed by both parties. This will help to ensure that everyone understands the terms of the settlement and is committed to honoring them.

In conclusion, resolving this dispute between Kalinga and CMS will require open communication, a willingness to listen to each other's perspectives, and a commitment to finding a fair and equitable solution. If both parties can work together in good faith, they should be able to resolve the issue and continue their working relationship.