Shlensky v. Wrigley Case - Assignment Example

The lack of lights in the field made the board of directors incur a lot of losses. The court argued that the principles of corporate governance dictate that the affairs of a corporation must be run by a majority of the stockholders of the corporation. The rest of the directors, led by Wrigley, were however contented with Wrigley’s decision to restrict games played in the field for daytime alone. For this reason, the court was not convinced that the directors acted contrary to the organizational goals of the organization (Mallor, 2013).

During the hearing of the case, the court asserted that the complainant came up with his case after imagining that their team would be making as much money as other teams that played both at night and during the day (Mallor, 2013). Therefore, the corporate directors had not neglected their duties merely because they did not do as their counterparts did to get more money from the games. Additionally, the court concluded that there was not a substantial demonstration of inappropriate behavior by the board of directors.

Conclusion statement The court, therefore, affirmed the decision of the board of directors and ruled that defendants were right to have unanimously made the decision of not installing lights as a board.