The ruling should also account for the fact that it is actually in the best interests of both Sam and the bank to honor Sam's claim. Indeed, "building an ethical reputation among employees, customers, and the general public pays off," and "Among the rewards for being more ethical and socially responsible are increased efficiency in daily operations, greater employee commitment, increased investor willingness to entrust funds, improved customer trust and satisfaction, and better financial performance" (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell, p. 17-18). While it is likely the case that Sam will emerge from the case dissatisfied regardless of the ruling, if he is denied his claim he would be more likely to voice his displeasure to friends and the general public and this would cost the bank more customers than if they were to win the claim. Moreover, it is quite possible that the bank is faced with customers in the same situation as Sam, and failing to honor the applications of their customers would be not only dishonest but could develop...
Thus, at stake in the case is not only the issue of whether to honor Sam's claim, but more importantly, how the company is viewed by the public.
Certainly, it is true that Sam likely should have been more prudent in filing his application, but if the company advertises that the offer will last for three months, Sam would have had no way of knowing that the offer would be withdrawn. As it stands, the company appears as though they were trying to lure more customers, without even considering the well-being of those who have entrusted them with their financial records. Therefore, natural law mandates that the bank must honor Sam's claim, and such a decision is actually in the best interests of both parties.
References
Ferrell, O.C., John Fraedrich, and Ferrell. (2012). Business Ethics: Decision Making and Cases. Mason: South Western.
Mallor, J.P. et al. (2007). Business Law: The Ethical, Global, and E-Commerce Environment. Chicago: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
