In to find new suppliers for smartphones and

In contract law, two or more parties come together and agree
on a service that the other will provide. This is typically done within a
business as one form of work is traded for another in the form of monetary
reward. By making sure that all parties
agree on the terms of an agreement and making everyone sign a contract
attesting to this, this strategy reduces the chance that one party will have
grounds for legal action later on” (Wolfe, 2018). All parties will agree
to the outline of contract expectations prior to signing the contract and going
forward with the agreement. With both parties under the agreement stated in the
contract the hope is moving forward no concerns arise.

In a case between T-Mobile and Huawei Technologies, a
contract was entered in by both parties. Huawei Tech is a large company in China
that supplies smart phone parts and devices to companies. T-Mobile is carrier
for cell phones and cell network for customers. The contract between the two
companies outlined that Huawei Technologies would be
a smart phone supplier for T-Mobile handsets. Huawei would receive monetary
payments for these handsets and work with T-Mobile to advance in technology. In
the contract, there was information outlining that both the companies would
protect and not share knowledge learned through working together. T-Mobile stated
Huawei Technologies was on a visit to one of their test labs when an issue
arose. “On a visit to the lab, the employees photographed
the robot and one slipped one of Tappy’s fingertips into his bag, T-Mobile claimed”
(Lerman,2017).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

With these employees taking
the technology T-Mobile designed, this was a breach of the contract. T-Mobile
claimed because of this instance in the lab they had to find new suppliers for
smartphones and it cost millions of dollars. “Huawei admitted in 2014 that two
employees had acted inappropriately and said they had been fired. But the
company disagreed with the larger trade secrets claims in the case — that the
information was secret and had been used improperly to improve Huawei’s own
robot and benefit the company” (Lerman, 2017). After hearing both
sides in federal court, the jury determined that Huawei had misused T-Mobiles
trade secrets, and had breached a handset supply contract between the two
companies. “Although the jury
ruled in T-Mobile’s favor, they did not find that Huawei’s misappropriation was
“willful and malicious”(Dano, 2017). The
jury awarded T-Mobile 4.8 million dollars due to the breach of contract. Due to
breach of contract, damages were awarded but was rather small compared to what
T-Mobile requested and all the follow up and supply chain switches needed.

This case was handled in federal court and a jury decided
the overall outcome of the trial and breach of contract. I agree that T-Mobile should
be awarded monetary reward for the damages caused by the breach of contract
that the jury decided. This affected the company largely and had to bring in a new
supplier for the company. I disagree with the jury stating Huawei’s was not
planning to use technology taken from T-Mobile to better their own technology.
Being that they are a large tech company looking for ways to continuously develop
their own products and stay competitive I believe that the actions of their
employees was done to gain advanced technology for their company and their own
products. Being that the information these two employees took from the lab were
not returned to my knowledge leads me to believe they were used to better
Huawei Technologies. I think that T-Mobile should have been awarded a larger
sum of money due to the high costs of finding new suppliers needed after
Huawei’s breach of contract. 

Comments are closed.