Hallway Clash: Gage Accuses Sam of Self-Sabotage
Plot Beats
The narrative micro-steps within this event
Sam and Mr. Gage step into the hallway for a heated exchange, where Sam insists on ethical responsibility while Mr. Gage accuses him of trying to get fired.
Who Was There
Characters present in this moment
Explosive fury masking alarm at insubordination threatening the deal
Abruptly pulls Sam from the conference room for private rebuke, erupts in hallway with repeated demands 'What are you doing?' and accusation 'Are you trying to get fired?', then storms back inside, physically and verbally shutting down the rebellion.
- • Silencing Sam's disruption to salvage the tanker pitch
- • Reassert firm authority and discipline the associate
- • Profit-driven deals trump moral grandstanding
- • Associates must toe the line or face termination
Stunned confusion at the sudden premium pivot
Reacts with shock to Sam's escalating pitch just as they exit, blurting '46 million dollars?' in disbelief at the alternative price, underscoring the firm's cost sensitivities amid the unfolding mutiny.
- • Clarify the shocking cost escalation
- • Protect the low-price deal structure
- • Liability coverage suffices without pricier upgrades
- • Cheap ships align with client fiscal priorities
Neutral observance of escalating discord
Offers tentative 2017 service life estimate supporting the pitch's fiscal framing, passively enabling the environment Sam's defiance disrupts en route to the hallway clash.
- • Contribute accurate timelines to due diligence
- • Align with senior pitch strategy
- • Procedural estimates underpin sound deals
- • Firm hierarchy dictates intervention limits
Impatient dismissal of ethical detours
Earlier voices desire for the cheap fleet in response to Sam's initial proposal, dismissing broader risks with PR firm quips, setting the stage for the exit confrontation by highlighting transactional priorities.
- • Secure the low-cost acquisition
- • Minimize perceived risks via external PR
- • PR handles reputational fallout from spills
- • Lowest price drives client satisfaction
Righteously defiant, fueled by ethical conviction overriding fear of repercussions
Persistently pitches the Suez tanker alternative while following Gage out of the room, citing specs, no-penalty clause, and moral duty in the hallway confrontation, undaunted by fury, voice steady as he invokes client options and disaster prevention.
- • Persuade clients and firm to pursue safer ships
- • Fulfill perceived moral obligation to prevent environmental harm
- • Lawyers must offer clients superior, ethical options beyond cheap expediency
- • Single-hulled tankers risk catastrophic spills like Valdez, demanding intervention
Professional detachment amid emerging tension
Sets regulatory context pre-proposal by detailing Libya/Panama flagging to evade OPA and estimating 2015 service life, framing the cheap ships' appeal that Sam's interruption directly challenges leading to the exit.
- • Bolster the pitch with regulatory workarounds
- • Project deal viability through timelines
- • Foreign flagging circumvents U.S. safety mandates effectively
- • Amortization justifies short-term service life
Location Details
Places and their significance in this event
Serves as the launchpad for the confrontation: polished mahogany table and glass walls witness Sam's disruptive proposal and Gage's yank to the adjacent hallway, where isolation amplifies the personal showdown; embodies corporate power's gleaming facade cracking under ethical assault.
Narrative Connections
How this event relates to others in the story
No narrative connections mapped yet
This event is currently isolated in the narrative graph
Key Dialogue
"MR. GAGE: "Sam, what are you doing?""
"SAM: "I think I have an obligation.""
"MR. GAGE: "Are you trying to get fired?""
"SAM: "Maybe they're really going to thank us for this suggestion.""
"MR. GAGE: "Knock it off!""