Thoughts on Walgreens and Theranos Case

Thoughts on Walgreens and Theranos Case.

Thoughts on Walgreens and Theranos Case

Walgreen entered into an agreement with the blood-testing firm Theranos. Theranos had found a new blood technology and entered an agreement with Walgreen to use Walgreens various drug stores for testing purposes. Although the terms of their agreement are not in the public domain, Walgreen was right to terminate its ties with Theranos.

Theranos has been at the center of several suits for a faulty blood test. Its technology, Edison system has been questioned of its ability to produce credible and accurate results. Following those several fraudulent implications, Walgreen’s reputation is at stake.

The agreement was premised on the genuine capacity of the testing technology. During the time of entering into the contract, Edison system was deemed as a breakthrough in testing blood for a myriad of diseases. Walgreens committed to the terms of the contract since due to the hype attached to the new technology. Walgreens would have benefited greatly if the technology was a success (Berger & M, 2016). The failures related to the technology posed a threat to the reputation of Walgreens, which is also trying to establish itself in the market.

The move by Walgreen to ask for $ 140 million to cover damages suffered is genuine in violation of the terms is a juristic act that is contrary to the contract terms (Shsu Education, 2016). Theranos acted outside the terms of the contract, and that jeopardized the future and reputation of Walgreen. In response to the claims, Theranos stated that Walgreen had also violated several terms of the contract. If that was the case, Theranos should have taken legal action by claiming compensation for the damages suffered or by terminating the contract (Berger & M, 2016). Despite 140 million being a very large amount, Walgreen has the right to be paid for the damages suffered due to the Theranos’ insufficiencies.

 

References

Berger, K. P., & M, L. L. (2016, March 1). No. II.3 – agent acting without or outside his authority. Retrieved December 8, 2016, from https://www.trans-lex.org/913000/_/agent-acting-without-or-outside-his-authority

Shsu Education (2016).Agency relationships: Overview. Retrieved December 8, 2016, from https://www.shsu.edu/klett/agency et al.htm

 

For a Customized Paper on the above or Related Topic, Place Your Order Now!

Thoughts on Walgreens and Theranos Case

Leave a Reply