Ford Bronco II Case Summary

Nancy Denny believed she was buying a Bronco II, which gave her the ability to switch between two-wheel and four wheel drive. According to the sales manual this feature would be appealing to women due to the vehicles’ ability to drive safer on snow and ice. Nancy Denny bought the vehicle due to the benefits of the four wheel drive and additionally, she had not interest in using the vehicle for off road purposes. It could be said that the information provided in the manual were somewhat misleading, especially for those not

 New-Car Dealers account for an estimated 30% of all units sold in a given

HINT: See Chapters 10-14 of the text to help understand some of the legal issues covered in this assignment.

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

<br>Ford appears to have made a successful effort in reaching its target audience in this advertisement. Not only did they appeal to at least three of the basic needs men tend to express, but it also opened the door for future advertisements to further explain other benefits of owning such a truck

In this essay, I will argue that Ford Motor Company’s business behavior was unethical as demonstrated in the Ford Pinto Case. Ford did not reveal all the facts to consumers about a harmful gas tank design in the Ford Pinto. They tried to justify their decision to sell an unsafe car by using a Cost-Benefit Analysis which determined it was cheaper to sell the cars without changing to a safer gas tank. The price of not fixing the gas tanks is human injuries and fatalities. By choosing not to make the Pinto a safer vehicle Ford placed a price on the head of every consumer. Ford’s primary concern was to maximize profits. Ford had a duty and ethical responsibility to customers to

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

The primary reason why Ford designed the VEP was that Ford believed its stock was undervalued and the undervalued stock was limiting the company 's ability to use its stock for acquisitions or to attract, retain or incentivize employees. Ford thought the VEP would enhance the value of its outstanding shares because the recapitalization will highlight its cash reserves and cash flow generating capacity, and also indicates management 's confidence in the future of the business. In addition, Ford believed the adjustments in the employee incentive plans by the recapitalization will tie Ford management 's compensation even more closely to the performance of its stock price.

Despite the wintry conditions, cold and very windy, each dealership was packed with potential customers browsing the lots and test driving new vehicles. Everyone gets a “rush” when in the market for new cars, maybe because we do it so infrequently! Even before dealing with any salespeople, Mike was eager about checking out the 2013 models, and what cool new features are now available. Even though Mike knew he wasn’t going to be making a purchase, he was excited to see what kind of strides Ford had made since the infamous government bailout of 2009.

6. What responsibilities to its customers do you think Ford had? What are the most important moral rights, if any, operating in the Pinto case?

The prosecutor advised the jury to consider the extent to which Ford recklessly and knowingly trade profit over safety in the placement and design of the Pinto’s gas tank. Ford Company went ahead to manufacture the car even after the engineers did a crash test that

“a consumer buying a car may not be informed fully about the safety features of various models or may not have adequate information to evaluate the importance or usefulness of various options (e.g., antilock brakes, four-wheel drive, side cross beams to reduce the damage from a side collision). The information asymmetry about those models or features is common and may allow an "aggressive" sales person to exploit the buyer's ignorance” (Englander & Moy, 2003).

The customers (drivers of Ford) are the number one stakeholders that lost the most. They might not have lost much money or reputations, but they lost the one thing that you can never get back, their life.

Technology has brought many luxuries to people. The invention of the automobile has brought convenience to everyday living. People use their vehicles to commute to work, school, home, and other events. Some people cannot even imagine living life without the use of an automobile. People have different tastes in the type of automobile that they drive; the automotive industry has made several different ways to commute. The car and the sports utility vehicle seem to be the most common types. The sports utility vehicle is inferior to the car.

Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty