Otiz v. St. Peter's Case Study - Term Paper Example

This will be helpful in warding off turf wars between services providers such as radiologists and cardiologists who may antagonize each other over the specialty that should be reading 64-slice CT angiograms and analyses. The corollary to this is that the partners must be sober when negotiating the contract. This vigilance will help maintain specificity in the scope of services more accurately. The scope should be accurate and broad enough to capture both ongoing and future services that are to be rendered.

In this effect, it becomes obvious that Oltz was slighted since he had been delivering all his services. In this above wavelength, it is also important that the parties ensure that necessary resources needed to render the services are available. This will ward off the need to hire the services of a subspecialist, only a short while into the contract. It is also important that at this juncture, the vending company should negotiate with the healthcare institution on the right of first refusal. This will help protect the vendor’s exclusivity in its field of services delivery and specialty.

It is most likely that Oltz was enjoying the right of first refusal and had ably been discharging his duties to the hospital until the physician anesthesiologists unfairly elbowed him out of operation. According to Devers (2003), the parties must also seriously moot termination issues. Termination issues are spelt in bond financing 501 (c) (3) and modify the terms, length and limits of an exclusive contract. Though the longest term of an exclusive contract is three years, the partners must ascertain whether the contract can be automatically renewed or not.

In the event that this contract is nonrenewable, the partners will have to renegotiate on the contract’s expiry. St. Peter’s Community Hospital is culpable in this case since it neither considered the terms of the contract it had entered with Oltz, nor did it follow the contract termination process. Another important