Explore BrainMass

Analyzing Monsanto Case Study

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

I am having trouble with the following case, defining the problem and starting the analysis. I need help beginning this assignment.

Please see the attached files.

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 25, 2018, 7:29 am ad1c9bdddf


Solution Preview

A. A problem statement has two parts(1/2 page after 1/2 page introduction)

Context of the Case Study:

This case study revolves around the history and analysis of the herbicides market in the United States and global markets and the potential launch of the Roundup Ready Soybean seed, a new kind of genetically modified seed soon to be launched by Monsanto. Monsanto is a leading manufacturer of herbicides and is launching this new seed which is resistant to its own line of leading herbicide product called Roundup. Monsanto is evaluating the prospect of launching this new product by deciding on the appropriate mix of marketing mix elements such as pricing, positioning, distribution and promotions. It is extremely important for Monsanto to decide on the appropriate mix of various marketing mix elements as the future growth and success of this new product as well as herbicide will rest on the success of this new launch. The launch of RR soybean seed will help the company to push the sales of its Roundup herbicide as well because farmers using the new RR soybean seed will be forced to use the roundup herbicide as well.

Key Problem:

The main problem surrounding Monsanto in the case study is to decide on the best launch strategy for RR Soybean seeds by finalizing the best mix of pricing, ...

See Also This Related BrainMass Solution

Case Study Analysis: Smithson v White

Read and understand the case. The case must have Analysis, Reasoning and the situation in the case must be summarized. The case must be presented with each of the following outline topics:
a. Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant and tell something about them.]
b. Facts [Summarize those facts critical to the outcome of the case.]
c. Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
d. Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns.]
e. Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
f. Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision.]
g. Case Questions [Be sure to address and thoroughly answer each and every case question and each part of each question.]
h. Conclusion [This should summarize the key aspects of the decision and also your recommendations on the court's ruling.]
i. Include citations on the slides and a reference page with your sources. Use APA style citations and references.
This will be used for assistance only and not used as my own work.

Here is the case:

Thomas Smithson, a house builder and small-scale property developer, decided that a certain tract of undeveloped land in Franklin, Tennessee, would be extremely attractive for development into a subdivision. Smithson contacted the owner of the property, Monsanto Chemical Company, and was told that the company would sell the property at the "right price."

Smithson did not have the funds with which to embark unassisted in the endeavor, so he contacted Frank White, a co-owner of the Andrews Realty Company, and two agents of the firm Dennis Devrow and Temple Ennis. Smithson showed them a sketch map with the proposed layout of the lots, roads, and so forth. Smithson testified that they all orally agreed to develop the property together, and in lieu of a financial investment, Smithson would oversee the engineering of the property. Subsequently, H. R. Morgan was brought into the deal to provide additional financing.

Smithson later discovered that White had contacted Monsanto directly. When challenged about this, White assured Smithson that he was still "part of the deal" but refused to put the agreement in writing. White, Devrow, Ennis, and Morgan purchased the property from Monsanto. They then sold it to H.A.H. Associates, a corporation, for a $184,000 profit. When they refused to pay Smithson, he sued to recover an equal share of the profits. Was a partnership formed between Smithson and the defendants? Who wins? Smithson v. White, Web 1988 Tenn.App. Lexis 221 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee).

View Full Posting Details