Buyer missed one option and got 1% of the cable they needed
A defence company worker in the 1970s ordered 100 metres of specialist coaxial cable but received only one metre. The buyer had failed to notice a "partial delivery" option in the ordering process, and this critical shortfall made the cable useless for connecting two laboratory facilities with an RF connection.
It later emerged that a junior employee at the cable supplier had deliberately used the partial delivery option, thinking it was a humorous prank. The employee was dismissed and the supplier lost their accreditation, a steep price for what was intended as a joke.
- Defence worker ordered 100m cable, received 1m due to unchecked partial delivery option
- Supplier's junior employee sent partial delivery as a prank thinking it was funny
- The joke backfired: employee was fired and supplier lost their accreditation
New here? Start with this
In the 1970s, a defence company worker ordered 100 metres of specialist cable needed to connect two laboratory facilities. The order arrived with only one metre instead. The cable was needed as a continuous run and thus became useless for its purpose.
The buyer had not noticed a "partial delivery" option when placing the order. A junior employee at the cable supplier had deliberately selected this option, intending it as a practical joke. Neither party realised what had happened until the package arrived incomplete.
The cable supplier dismissed the employee responsible and lost its accreditation. For companies supplying specialist equipment, such losses are significant. The episode shows how errors in supply chains—through oversight or intent—can have serious consequences.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The supplier's employee deliberately interfered with an order through the partial delivery option, breaching fundamental professional obligations to fulfil orders correctly. In defence contexts, such deliberate misconduct is particularly serious. The employee's dismissal and the supplier's loss of accreditation were appropriate accountability measures—they held both individual and organisation responsible for the breach and reinforced that customer trust cannot be compromised by individual whimsy.
The case against
Whilst the employee's prank was ill-judged and warranted disciplinary action, revoking the supplier's accreditation appears disproportionately severe. The employee acted individually out of poor judgment rather than malice, and the error was caught before causing genuine operational harm. Destroying an entire company's business and many employees' livelihoods through accreditation loss seems to exceed appropriate accountability for a single person's foolishness.