Question

Please read the following study case "Hot Coffee" then answer:

In a world of get-rich-quick schemes, few are mentioned more frequently than lawsuits. One of the reasons is the infamous McDonald’s coffee case (Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants). This is what happened in 1992 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Stella Liebeck, seventy-nine, was riding in a car driven by her grandson. They stopped at a McDonald’s drive-through, where she purchased a Styrofoam cup of coffee. Wanting to add cream and sugar, she squeezed the cup between her knees and pulled off the plastic lid. The entire thing spilled back into her lap. The searing liquid left her with extensive third-degree burns. Eight days of hospitalization—which included skin grafts—were required.

Initially, she sought $20,000 from McDonald’s, which was more or less the cost of her medical bills. McDonald’s refused. They went to court. There it came to light that about seven hundred claims had been made by consumers between 1982 and 1992 for similar incidents. This seems to indicate that McDonald’s knew—or at least should have known—that the hot coffee was a problem.

Most of the rest of the case turned around temperature questions. McDonald’s admitted that they served their coffee at 185 degrees, which will burn the mouth and throat and is about 50 degrees higher than typical homemade coffee. More importantly, coffee served at temperatures up to 155 degrees won’t cause burns, but the danger rises abruptly with each degree above that limit. So why did McDonald’s serve it so hot? Most customers, the company claimed, bought on the way to work or home and would drink it on arrival. The high temperature would keep it fresh until then. Unfortunately, internal documents showed that McDonald’s knew their customers intended to drink the coffee in the car immediately after purchase. Next, McDonald’s asserted that their customers wanted their coffee hot. The restaurant conceded, however, that customers were unaware of the serious burn danger and that no adequate warning of the threat’s severity was provided.

Finally, the jury awarded Liebeck $160,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages (about two days worth of McDonalds’ coffee sales). The judge, however, reduced the $2.7 million to $480,000. McDonald’s threatened to appeal, and the two sides eventually came to a private settlement agreement.Consumer Attorneys of California, “The Actual Facts About the McDonalds’ Coffee Case,” The ‘Lectric Law Library, 1995, accessed June 2, 2011,

Questions:

1. What does caveat emptor mean? According to this doctrine, who is responsible for Stella Liebeck’s burns? Explain.
2. Does the fact that she’s seventy-nine years old make it more difficult to justify a caveat emptor attitude in this case?
3. One aspect of the caveat emptor doctrine is that it maximizes respect for the consumer as an independent and autonomous decider. Could that be a reason for affirming that a seventy-nine-year-old is a better candidate than most for a caveat emptor ethics of consumption?
4. In general terms, what does it mean to claim that an implicit contract arises around a transaction? How does that contract protect the consumer?

Answer 1

1.

Caveat emptor is the possibility that the purchaser of the merchandise oversees checking the quality before making the buy. For this situation, this would imply that Stella Liebeck's consumes would be her own obligation. As indicated by admonition emptor, she ought to have checked the temperature of the fluid before assuming that it is sheltered to hold between her knees for a couple of minutes. I discover Stella Liebeck complete responsibility of her copies. I trust that Stella Liebeck should've known it was hot when she requested "hot" espresso. Something else I find that she did as a purchaser ought to know about is that she shouldn't have put hot fluid between her legs knowing it might spill in light of the fact that for two reasons she's crushing it to hold it and it could be pressed on her or the auto moves that she is riding it.

2.

Yes she should be given special care because of her old age. There are certain basic moral and ethical standard which we have to maintain in the society. Respecting elderly people is one of the many virtues which we must embibe.

3.

One could make the contention that she ought to have known better at her age to ensure it was protected to deal with in that way while in a vehicle. If you make this contention, you could state she has had a lot of years to result in these present circumstances acknowledgment that she ought to have better judgment with regards to taking care of hot drinks.

4.

True, the idea of caveat emptor gives some degree of independence to the buyers. But the problem which I want to highlight here is that if we as a buyer are not well informed then how could we make independent choice.

For example, in this case the McDonald would have told that the temperature of the coffee is high and anything above 150 is harmful for our health. Even after knowing this a person buys this then it's his choice and independence as a customer. There is an 'extended producer responsibility' which should be taken care of. Big firms are not only there to earn big. There are some implicit customer responsiblity and the firms should adhere to that.

When all is said in done terms, this case of a verifiable contract implies that since one is aware of the item and of the circumstance, they are legitimately capable once they bring it into their ownership. In any case, an organization will often back up their item after it is bought too. This as a rule ensures a buyer by giving an approach to get reparations when the item is flawed.

***Dear student, please like this answer as a token of appreciation***