Question

Two friends and neighbours arrange to go into business together and then become bitter

rivals: This is the story of Bob Bell and Michael Sharpe, who once lived just four houses
apart on Oxford Street in Guelph, Ontario.
Bell and Sharpe thought they had a good idea for a new business venture—a bicycle
trailer—but the good idea turned into a long, sizzling struggle. Bell invented the bicycle
trailer. Shortly after coming up with the idea, he began to design and build the bicycle
trailer in his garage. Once he shared his idea with Sharpe, both thought they could form a
successful partnership by drawing upon each other’s expertise. Bell, an engineer by trade,
would take on research and development; Sharpe, a former computer software sales
manager and career manager, would focus on marketing. Sharpe put together the business
plan—but before it was finalized, the deal fell apart.
The major point of conflict between Bell and Sharpe was royalties. Bell wanted to license
the bicycle trailer design to Sharpe and collect a fee for each bicycle trailer produced.
Sharpe wanted Bell to invest more in the venture and share the financial risk. However,
Bell did not see any grounds for negotiation. Bell considered the bicycle trailer his idea. He
had designed it, he had bought the materials to build it, and he had put in the time to
develop the final product. When both parties hired lawyers and Bell demanded intellectual
property rights, the great Canadian buggy war began.
Bell planned a slow, steady campaign, working from the basement of his home with one
employee. He started selling his cargo trailer, the WIKE, at the local farmers’ market. His
goal was to sell 20 trailers the first year and 500 in the coming year. Bell continued his “go
slow, get it right” campaign, selling locally and fine-tuning his trailer to carry children.
However, he eventually decided that making every bicycle trailer himself was not a good
strategy. By 2002, Bob Bell just wanted his life back.
Meanwhile, Sharpe had his own grand plan. He established his new company, Greenways,
mortgaged his home, took a bank loan, rented a factory, and hired five employees. Sharpe began mass production of his version of the trailer, the Wonder Wagon, which
accommodated small children. He projected sales of 2500 nationwide for the coming year.
By the spring of 1994, Sharpe was selling to big specialty retailers and Toronto’s largest
sporting goods store. Later, bike shops across the country and two national retailers were
selling his wagon. He was even a corporate sponsor in Vancouver’s Ride for Life.
So how did this end? Bell won the patent infringement case against Sharpe. Bell’s company
has expanded to six different versions of the bicycle trailer. It also has a licensed
manufacturer in China, from whom Bell collects royalties. Sharpe eventually abandoned the
whole buggy idea, and switched careers to . . . the fitness industry.
Questions
1. What were the sources of conflict between Bell and Sharpe?
2. Which of the five conflict resolution techniques does each man prefer in handling his
conflict? Is there another conflict resolution approach you would recommend? Why?
3. How would you have handled the conflict? Why?

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

1. The sources of conflict between Bell and Sharpe were primarily related to the ownership and financial aspects of their business venture. The major point of contention was the issue of royalties. Bell wanted to license his bicycle trailer design to Sharpe and collect a fee for each trailer produced, while Sharpe wanted Bell to invest more in the venture and share the financial risk.

2. Based on the information provided, it seems that Bell preferred a competitive conflict resolution approach. He wanted to assert his ownership of the bicycle trailer design and demanded intellectual property rights, leading to a patent infringement case against Sharpe.

On the other hand, Sharpe seemed to prefer a collaborative conflict resolution approach initially. He wanted Bell to invest more in the venture and share the financial risk. However, as the conflict escalated, Sharpe pursued his own independent path by establishing his own company, Greenways, and mass-producing his version of the trailer.

Given the information provided, an alternative conflict resolution approach that could have been recommended is a compromising approach. Both parties could have worked towards a mutually beneficial solution by finding a middle ground where Bell could have received some financial compensation for his invention, while Sharpe could have shared the risk and invested in the venture to a certain extent.

3. Handling the conflict would require effective communication and negotiation between Bell and Sharpe. Here is how I would have approached the conflict:

a) Facilitate open and honest communication: Encourage Bell and Sharpe to express their concerns, interests, and goals clearly. This will help them understand each other's perspectives and foster better communication.

b) Identify common goals: Find common ground where both parties can agree and work together. Emphasize their shared interest in the success of the business venture and focus on finding a win-win solution.

c) Explore a compromise: Encourage Bell and Sharpe to consider a compromise that addresses their concerns. This could involve a combination of licensing the design and sharing the financial risk. They can agree on a royalty fee for Bell while Sharpe invests in the venture to a certain extent.

d) Seek professional advice: Engage neutral third parties, such as business consultants or mediators, to provide guidance and facilitate the negotiation process. Professional advice can help them navigate complex legal and financial aspects and find a fair resolution.

e) Document agreements: Once a resolution is reached, ensure that the agreements and terms are documented in a formal contract. This will provide clarity and prevent future misunderstandings.

By adopting a collaborative and compromising approach, it would have been possible to find a resolution that satisfied both parties' interests and allowed them to work together more effectively.