Passage Summary: A company promised in writing not to sue a contractor if things went wrong, but when the contractor messed up, the company sued anyway and won. An ethicist argues that even though the law allowed them to win, it was morally wrong for them to break their original promise.

Conclusion: The ethicist concludes that it was morally wrong for the company to seek restitution after previously agreeing not to hold the contractor liable.

Reasoning: The company signed a written waiver of liability before the work began, but later changed its mind and successfully sued the contractor when the job was bungled.

Analysis: This is a Principle Justify question, so we need a rule that bridges the gap between the factual premise (breaking a signed agreement) and the moral conclusion (it was wrong). The argument assumes that legal rights do not always dictate moral obligations. Look for a principle that establishes a moral requirement to stick to one's word or written agreements, regardless of whether a court later decides those agreements are legally binding. The company might have the law on its side, but the ethicist is judging their character, not their legal strategy.