The case "The Actual Facts About - The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case" is very interesting. I enjoyed reading it. I have seen products sell in term of "As Is" on the online and actual markets. However, what it really means and how it affects the buyers if it happens any flaw occurs to the customers. To figure it out whether it is ethical when dealing with this term lets examine this article. 1. The term Caveat emptor is a commercial term that regulates the seller is not responsible for the good and services they put on the market for sale. The buyers alone is responsible for the quality of the good they buy. If any breach of conditions or it is not fit for the ordinary purposes the consumers' need, the consumer alone must be responsible (Brusseau, 2012). In the case of Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's, if the coffee is put on the term Caveat Emptor, the seventy-nine years old woman cannot recover her lost. Thus, she could not recover damages from the merchant. According to this doctrine, "let the buyer beware" (Brusseau, 2012, p. 614). The buyer should take the responsibility alone. They entered into a secret settlement. There's still in doubt, as the author put it, "No one will ever know the final ending to this case" (Nizer, 2018, p. 1). 2. …show more content…
The caveat emptor is difficult to justify an ethical term. In practice, the exceptional case may apply to this term. In reality, there are many forces that caveat emptor is difficult to apply. If the sellers lied that the car no needs maintenance, they would have committed fraud. If MacDonald's sell coffee above the homemade coffee temperature (above 155 degrees), it would be under consent by fraud (Brusseau,
Geoff Herzog is the product manager for coffee development at Kraft Foods Canada. After reviewing successful results of single-serve coffee pod systems, he wondered whether it would be successful in other areas. It was July 6, 2004, and Herzog had just learned that Kraft Foods North America was planning an aggressive launch of coffee pods in the United States. He then had only a month to decide whether or not the company should proceed with a simultaneous launch in Canada, or await the U.S. results.
How was McDonald’s supposed to know that Stella would spill the coffee on herself? Coffee is meant to be served hot, just as blades are meant to be sharp. Stella suing for being burned by coffee is the same principal as a person suing a knife company after being cut by one of their products. The world is a dangerous place; many things around us have the capability to cause damage. Corporations should not be held responsible for any damage sustained after using their product improperly. McDonald’s could not have prevented Stella spilling the coffee on herself.
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
The larger serving size of Great Cups of Coffee is perhaps the most apparent gage that will improve appeal for the company’s customers. Receiving extra of a proportionately quality product for a comparable price obviously works as an enticement for customers to prefer Great Cups more than the opposition. While customers identify with a better quality and superior taste with fresher coffee, Great Cups supports its effective model of serving coffee that has been roasted no more 72 hours ago and that is blended and ground right at the store. Great Cups also provides as an unintended marketing method community bulletin boards and assists with book club gatherings as well as
Lahdesmaki (2005) argued that marketing can be an ethical contract between businesses and their customers. Therefore businesses are morally obliged to inform their customers about the products in store and provide all the information necessary via marketing strategy so the customer can make informed decisions about their purchase.
From the point of view of Kantian ethics the strategy of Starbucks in the case of its legal persecution of the Charbucks brand is not a rightful approach. Kantian ethics implies that in any case concerned people have to be treated as human beings and not like the objects. In the actions of Starbucks there is a clear pattern of not considering the human factor in their legal case against the Black Bear. The ethical approach of Utilitarianism does not justify the actions of Starbucks Company either. This ethics views each action from the position of the co...
For my report, I observed the customers at a Starbucks in downtown St. Petersburg. Each time I visited this establishment, there were consistent factors as well as unique ones during each observation. The morning crowd of people was vastly different than the evening crowd. I did however see many parallels with the morning and lunch time crowd. Each time I visited, There seemed to be an upbeat and fast paced environment.
When we consider the case of the Ford Pinto, and its relative controversy, through the varied scope of ethical viewpoints, the results might surprise us. From a personal standpoint, as a consumer, the idea of selling a vehicle to the masses with such a potentially devastating flaw is completely unethical. When we consider the case from other directions and other ethical viewpoints, however, it makes it clear that often ethics are a matter of perspective and philosophy. It’s also clear that there are cases where more information will muddy the waters, rather than clear them.
The company started its activity in 1971 as small coffee shop located in Seattle specialized in selling whole arabica coffee beans. After being taken over by Howard Schultz in 1982, following a rapid and impressive growth, by mid 2002 the company was the dominant specialty-coffee brand in North America, running about 4,500 stores, 400 international stores and 930 licenses.
Starbucks takes the standards of business conduct very seriously. Starbucks “support(s) the global business ethics policy and provide(s) an overview of some of the legal and ethical standards” (Starbucks Coffee) around the world and in every store they serve their customers. Another important factor is that Sta...
Every thriving company must embrace some sort of code of ethics ground rules which will guarantee its success. In this case, Starbucks wants to promote high standards of practice; by selling the richest and aromatic coffees in the world to the ...
Compare the globalization approaches of Starbucks & McDonalds The parameters to be used for this comparison are:
In order to generate sales, marketers often promote aggressively and uniquely, unfortunately, not all marketing advertisements are done ethically. Companies around the globe spend billions of dollars to promote new products and services and advertising is one of the key tools to communicate with consumers. Conversely, some methods that marketers use to produce advertisements and to generate sales is deceptive and unethical. Ethical issues concern in marketing has always been noted in marketing practice. According to Prothero (2008), ethics itself has a profound, varied and rich past. It emphasizes on questions of right and wrong or good and bad.
Consumers have expectations In terms of a good quality product that should be availed at a reasonable price. Consumers don’t only want the business to be socially responsible towards them in this manner of reasonable prices but way beyond this. They should meet the needs of consumers in ways of convenience and appearance. But business should also consider other aspects like environmental impact when packaging is disposed.
Starbucks recognizes its employees for much of its success. This is due mostly to maintenance of a great and proven work environment for all employees. The company does not have a formal organizational chart; sot employees are permitted by management to make decisions without a management referral. Moreover, management trust and stands behind the decision of the employees and it is this that allows for employees to thinks for themselves as a part of the business, so as to make them feel as a true asset and not as just another employee.