These scenarios are all presented with virtuous CEO's and owners right?
It would be wise to leave a bit of room for greed and corruption. Consider coal mining just a couple of generations ago..
Mine offers to buy land, set up shop, provide jobs, housing, food, mercantile - to anyone who will come and work for them.
Mine owns land, shop, housing, food and mercantile. Mine pays with some cash and some credits.
Poor people come to work, live in mine owned houses, shop at mine owned stores- and in tough times run up a line of credit.
Mine controls wages (and prices for food, rent, etc.), workers form union to attempt to gain a more fair wage.
Mine denies request and cuts off credit, begins eviction from mine owned properties.
Workers strike, mine merely hires "scabs" to work in place of the strikers.
Scabs replace strikers, usually violently. Violence is doled out by scabs and the mines own private security.
Poor workers are out of the picture. Scabs are eventually taken advantage of, then they are done away with in the same fashion.
Mine continues to function as normal- and is also paying off anyone who might report health/safety/environment concerns to keep quiet.
Nothing says this couldn't happen in the free market, although it wouldn't be as severe since people have many more options than just working at the mine..
I do think that if enough responsible people were able to form a society for themselves, then the virtuous free market system could exist. Expecting it all to run without a hitch is misty eyed dreaming!
I also think that a society bound by endless contracting with one another is doomed to fail. Ideally people would be responsible and respectful enough not take advantage of someone else, and would always follow through with their promises. But how likely is that?