Common Description:
Mr. Screwvala, a highly successful investment banker, had a career of nearly 25 years. In his circle, he was respected for his straight-shooter image and industrious behaviour. Screwvala loved travelling; he travelled extensively, both for his job and personal interests. He always wanted to share his life experiences with people at large.
He chanced upon such an opportunity when his old friend, Mr. Patel, a well-known publisher, offered Screwvala to publish a book based on his life experiences. Screwvala grabbed the opportunity; however, given his thorough nature, he took a three-year long sabbatical to finish the book.
During that period, Patel guided Screwvala at every step, reviewing every chapter personally. At the end, the book was probably as much Patel’s, as it was Screwvala’s!
On publication, the book turned out to be a bestseller, and Screwvala became famous.
Patel had a new proposal for Screwvala: he wanted Screwvala to work on a detective novel. Patel proposed that Screwvala would only write the final chapter of the detective novel, after his co-authors. Screwvala accepted the offer by signing a contract.
While waiting for his turn to come to write his chapter for the detective novel, Screwvala started writing a travel blog. Because of his radiant style, the blog became popular. Hence, he started mulling over converting the blog articles into a book.
When Screwvala shared this idea, Patel sprung a surprise by pointing out to a clause in their contract. The clause forbade Screwvala from publishing anything else until the detective novel got published. Screwvala signed the contract without reading it as he trusted Patel as a good friend. Further, Patel offered Screwvala an extra sum of money if he would delay the publication of his travel blog articles as a book.
Screwvala felt betrayed. Which of the following will be the MOST compelling reason for Screwvala to continue with publishing his blog as a book, ignoring the contract with Patel?
B
Step-by-Step Solution
Key idea: This is a bad-faith contract ethics question, recognizable because the protagonist wants to ignore a signed contract and the question asks what would most compellingly justify that choice.
Step 1: Identify the constraint. The contract explicitly forbids Screwvala from publishing anything else until the detective novel is published.
Step 2: Apply the ethical standard. Breaking a contract is not justified merely by frustration, delay, anger, or a better market opportunity. There must be objective evidence that the other party is acting unfairly, arbitrarily, or in bad faith, which voids the moral obligation of the agreement.
Step 3: Evaluate Option B. If Patel removed an originally contracted author because of personal differences, it suggests Patel is using contracts and project control arbitrarily. This gives Screwvala an objective reason to doubt Patel's good faith and the fundamental fairness of the agreement.
Step 4: Reject the alternatives. Reader overlap (Option A) is a market point, not an ethical justification. Screwvala's nature (Option C) or frustration (Option D) is emotional, not objective proof of unfairness. Slow progress is a standard project risk. A negotiated exit through compensation (Option E) is not a reason to ignore the contract; it is a way to legally resolve or honor it.
Answer: B