Reference no: EM133662644

Question: Yes, Galvanized would have a moral obligation to inform Ohm that TTT is fulfilling the order. This is because honesty and transparency are fundamental principles in business ethics. Even if TTT's products were indistinguishable from Galvanized's, Galvanized should still inform Ohm about the delegation. This is because it's not just about the quality of the product, but also about the principle of keeping all parties involved in a contract fully informed about any changes that may affect them. As for Ohm's ethical obligation to consent to Galvanized's delegation, it's not as clear-cut. Ethically, Ohm has the right to expect the terms of the contract to be fulfilled as agreed. If they believe that the delegation to TTT would not affect the quality of the tires or any other aspect of the contract, they might choose to consent. However, if they have any concerns about TTT's ability to fulfill the contract to the same standard as Galvanized, they would be within their rights to refuse. The key point here is that Ohm should make this decision based on full and accurate information, which is why Galvanized's transparency is so important. are you agree or not agree this this point of view?