Daphne, a purchasing officer in a watch manufacturing company, was responsible for recommending spare parts suppliers.  One day, a supplier, Simon, invited her for a lunch and made a business suggestion.  If Daphne recommended her company continuing to use Simon’s company as a supplier, Simon would mark up the quotation price by 4% from the next purchase order and they could equally split the profit by having 2% each.

Daphne was scandalized when hearing the suggestion.  Although Simon’s suggested mark-up price was still by far the lowest among the lot, the quality of his products was not as good as the others and only just met the company’s required standard.  On a second thought, she needed an extra income at the moment because she had just made the down-payment for her new flat.  After all, her company would still get a good bargain price.

Would Daphne commit an offence if she accepted Simon’s suggestion?  What factors does she need to consider when making a decision?

Alexander was Manager of Planning in a real estate development firm and was responsible for recommending a contractor to conduct an environmental study.  He was considering Gamble, a small firm which had done outstanding work for the firm in the past.  Roy, a friend and representative of another larger environmental research firm, approached Alexander on the matter over a lunch appointment.  Alexander clearly stated that Gamble would possibly get the contract because of its satisfactory past performance, whereas Roy’s firm had a dozen other contracts to keep them busy.

Roy seemed disappointed but Alexander was glad when conversation turned to other topics.  Roy asked Alexander about the progress of his emigration plan.  In fact, Alexander’s wife, Zoe, had already gone to Canada with two sons to settle down first while Alexander would work a few more years in Hong Kong before joining them.  Roy mentioned casually that he had connections in Toronto and could help Alexander place his sons into the best local school though it might take some doing.  The school enjoyed a reputation for good results and easy access to the University of Toronto.  Alexander understood what Roy really meant.  He desperately wanted to make a head-start for his children and pave a smooth path for them.

Would Alexander commit any offence if he recommended Roy’s company in return for Roy’s help for his sons? What factors should Alexander consider when making the decision?

Holly was a real estate agent.  She was amazed to find that her Sales Director and other colleagues used various “deal-closing techniques” on prospective clients.  The most effective technique was what they called “the other party”.

Pushing the potential buyer for a decision, Holly’s colleagues would create a “buy-now-or-never” atmosphere by all means.  The colleagues would misinterpret the availability of the property concerned by saying that it was also viewed by many interested buyers of other colleagues.  In front of the potential buyer, they also either pretended to make lots of enquiries or engaged in a heated debates with other colleagues about the availability of the property.  The purpose was to increase the purchase desire as well as to impose pressure on the potential buyer.

According to Holly’s boss Mark, it was a real estate agent’s job to "help the potential buyer with a purchase decision".  Holly had her scruples and disagreed with such psychological manipulation.  However, after six months, she found herself lagging behind in terms of sales figures.  Mark remarked that Holly lacked ‘sales techniques’.

Should Holly also adopt the psychological manipulation that her colleagues had found so successful?   Or should she try to close deals in her own way, and be upfront and honest with her clients?

Clara worked for Maria, the buyer of a gourmet food department. They received a shipment of thin little wafers from a foreign country that had cream filling with fruits. The wafers were packed in foil-covered boxes, but somehow some wafers were infested with insects. Clara and Maria assumed that the news was not widely spread out yet because not all of the customers brought back the contaminated product.  But some customers did return the product.  Obviously, Clara and Maria could not continue to sell them. They couldn’t inspect all the boxes and keep the uninfected ones because there were too many boxes.  Also, the inspection would involve damaging the foil-covered boxes which would lead to a loss of products worth $900,000.

Maria said that the manufacturer would not refund them because the infestation occurred very possibly during the shipment or even during the storage at the food department’s warehouse.   Maria told Clara to get rid of the product by all means.  Clara thought that Maria meant a disposal of the product; but Maria then clearly said, “Absolutely not disposal. Call YY and KK. They operate retail stores in the new towns and sell almost anything. We’ve got to get some of our money back.” Clara was shocked when hearing the instructions.

Should Clara follow Maria’s instructions? Would it be better if she told YY and KK the truth?   What if the product brought in thousands of complaints?  Clara found herself in the middle of a nightmare.

As the head of the marketing department of a toy company, Donald strongly felt that the company’s recent TV ads which were full of violence were unsuitable for children.  He knew that his criticisms of the ads at executive meetings did not make him popular among the senior management.  However, Donald was shocked when the company’s president warned him in a firm tone to keep quite on the matter in the coming executive meeting because the ads generated a lot of sales.  The president added that the company had to pay dividends to the shareholders and could not afford to turn down the profit.  

What should Donald do?  Should he refrain from expressing his views because of the president’s warning?   Should he follow his conscience?  Would it be possible to replace the existing advertisements with “healthier” ones?

Fagin was a sole agent for a sports bag imported from a foreign country.  The bags appealed to teenagers and came in various striking colours.  They were renowned for its high quality and being colour-fast.  One day, Fagin received a complaint from a customer that the colour of the bag ran off shortly after the purchase.  Fagin quickly made a refund and hushed up the matter.  To avoid further financial loss, he was planning to get rid of all the stocks by a massive sale on the bags before the related news broke out.  Meanwhile, he also wondered if he should disclose the defect to the distributors in Hong Kong.  He thought it would be fine during massive sale as long as he did not lie about the flaw but simply avoid mentioning it.

Was Fagin acting wrongly?  Would his failure to disclose relevant information be as bad as making false claims about his products?  Should he call back all the defected products from the market in order to maintain a good business reputation?

After graduation, Becky worked in a company that distributed electronic appliances.  When customers phoned the office asking for information on certain electrical appliances, Becky would look up the model, the price, and the inventory level in the computer database.  The boss always instructed Becky to tell the customers that they had the goods in stock, even if it wasn’t true. The boss explained that this tactic was to secure the orders first even when the required model was certainly out of stock in the market.  He argued that, as long as the customers did not know the stock situation, it was no harm for customers to wait and new models could even be suggested while they were waiting.  This stalling tactic was better than letting customers go to the competitors.  The boss’ argument sounded justified, but Becky did not feel comfortable because this meant she had to lie frequently.

What should Becky do?  Would she lose her sense of integrity?  Should she try to win customers in another way?

Lily, a litigation clerk in a solicitor’s firm, was gentle and pleasant by nature.  One day, she was tasked to institute legal proceedings for covering arrears of rents of $900,000 and possession of four premises on behalf of the firm’s client.

Lily visited the premises and spoke to the tenants.  She was appalled by their hardship, especially after hearing the tales of woe spun by the tenants.  She agreed with the tenants that the landlord was too harsh on them and had been charging a cut-throat rent.  Many families would have to sleep in the streets if evicted.

Lily wished that she could do something to help.  She kept stalling for time and deferred carrying out what she had been instructed to do.  Weeks passed.

The client became impatient and complained to Lily’s boss, Henry. Lily made an excuse that she was too busy with other chores at that time. Henry accepted her explanation.  But when the client complained again, Henry started to give pressure on Lily.  Lily went to talk to the tenants who pleaded to Lily desperately.

What should Lily do?  Should she confess that she had not carried out her duty because she was sympathetic to the tenants’ plight? Would her lack of action be an indication of her inefficiency and lack of commitment to her job?  Would they suspect that she had received advantages for so doing?

In the midst of the rush to get overseas passports, Hong Kong people cast their eyes to countries far and near.  Some thought of Pollyanna, a small country in Europe.  Stories went round that there was a quick means to secure a Pollyannese passport.  They only had to make about $500,000 donation to a political party in Pollyanna as well as investing in the property market there.  In this way, they could bypass normal formalities and procure their passports in a short time.  Many people fell for the scheme and got hold of Pollyannese passports in this manner.

Michael was a solicitor who had been in the profession for a long time.  He was now a wealthy man enjoying great respect.  When one of his friends invited him to take on clients and help them to procure Pollyannese passports in this way, Michael began to ponder.

Should he assist in expediting normal procedures?  Would it be alright for him to participate in a shady scheme like this? As a legal professional, should he consider whether the means in achieving the ends were ethical from his professional perspective?

Oscar had been in practice for fifteen years and had built up quite a name for himself. He moved around in society and had been Chairman of the Tigers’ Club for two consecutive years and led a very busy social life.

A man called Peter Pang was charged with deception. Though he pleaded not guilty, he was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment by the District Court. Peter’s wife, Wendy, was shaken and wanted to file an appeal. She approached Oscar and asked Oscar to represent her husband in the appeal.

At that time, Oscar had a full load of cases and, without paying much attention, told Peter’s wife that he would handle the matter. He put the case aside for quite a while without proceeding. When he finally had time to pick it up, and tried to have it reviewed at the District Court, he was informed that the review had to be made by the High Court.  Oscar was in trouble. It was already too late for an appeal to be lodged at the High Court.

What should Oscar do? Should he tell Wendy the truth about the present situation?  Or should he come clean and apply to the High Court for special leave so that Peter could pursue his appeal?