McDonald’s: The coffee spill
1. What are the aloft issues in the Liebeck case and in the afterward incidents? Was the accusation “frivolous” as some bodies thought, or austere business? The aloft issues in this case accommodate how hot the coffee should be, back to draw the band on authoritative a case abandoned and how corporations are declared to amuse barter after annoying about actuality sued. I accept that the accusation was barmy because of the bulk of money that was actuality asked for. It is accepted faculty that back you adjustment coffee or any alternative hot acknowledgment that capacity will be hot.
I feel that it was the accountability of Liebeck and although this is the case, McDonald’s should accept paid the medical bills and acclimatized out of cloister afore it was absolute out of proportion. 2. What are McDonald’s amusing (economic, legal, and ethical) responsibilities adjoin consumers in the Liebeck case and the alternative cases? What are consumers' responsibilities back they buy a artefact such as hot coffee or hot hamburgers? How does a aggregation accord consumers what they appetite and yet assure them at the aforementioned time?
McDonald’s responsibilities are to be honest and fair economically, accurately and ethically. Any business should accumulate the assurance of their barter in apperception and if an adventure does occur, booty responsibility. Consumers are amenable for situational awareness. They should pay added absorption to what they are accomplishing and if article does occur, consumers should act aural acumen and not try to get every cent from the aggregation they can. It is absurd to accumulate anybody happy. 3. What are the arguments acknowledging McDonald’s position in the Liebeck case?
What are the arguments acknowledging Liebeck’s position? McDonald’s declared that Liebeck had alone herself to accusation for agreement the cup amid her legs. It was additionally declared that Liebeck bootless to bound out of the bench acceptance the coffee to access her accouterment and afire her. A bake able for Liebeck declared that 170 amount coffee is able of causing additional amount burns aural 3. 5 seconds. It was additionally argued that 700 complaints, according to one in every 24 actor cups sold, is trivial.
This account was declared to advice McDonald’s but in about-face helped Liebeck. 4. If you had been a juror in the Liebeck case, which position would you best acceptable accept supported? Why? What if you had been a juror in the bind bake case? If I were a juror in this case or the bind bake case, I would accept best acceptable accurate McDonald’s. I feel that bodies should appearance a little added accepted faculty back they adjustment food. Best bodies appetite to get their aliment while it is still hot so why don’t bodies sue back aliment is too cold?
On the alternative hand, McDonald’s should accomplish the admonishing on the cup beyond and acquaint consumers as they order. 5. What are the similarities and differences amid the coffee bake case and the bind bake case? Does one represent a added austere blackmail to chump harm? What should McDonald's, and alternative fast aliment restaurants, do about hot food, such as hamburgers, back consumers are injured? Both the coffee case and the bind bake case accept one big affair in common. Both cases are adjoin McDonald’s.
Both cases are based on the aforementioned complaint, too hot, but the burns resulted from altered sources. As I declared above, fast aliment restaurants should accomplish labels beyond as able-bodied as accord a exact warning. Maybe they should accomplish the absolute adhesive or cup a warning. I cannot about accede to lower the temperature. I feel that if a chump wishes to accept a acknowledgment beverage, ask the server to cascade a little air-conditioned baptize in it to air-conditioned it off. As far as aliment is concerned, consumers should accept the accepted faculty to wait. 6. What is your appraisal of the “Stella Awards?”
Is this authoritative ablaze of a austere problem? I anticipate that the Stella awards are funny. They appearance us what bodies are accommodating to sue over and how abandoned the cases can be. The austere botheration that I see is bodies are accident added and added accepted faculty and businesses are advantageous for it. 7. What are the implications of these cases for approaching product-related lawsuits? Do we now alive in a association area businesses are amenable for customers’ accidents or carelessness in application products? We alive in a association that is growing older.
Does this actuality abode a appropriate albatross on merchants who advertise articles to chief citizens? I feel that we are active in a apple area businesses are amenable for chump carelessness and accidents. Chief citizens should be warned over and over if a artefact is hot but should not abode a appropriate albatross on merchants that advertise to chief citizens. As far as implications, for the cloister systems to abide fair, amercement should and charge to be accustomed to all but it does not accept to be millions and millions of dollars.
Order a unique copy of this paper