Pelman V. Mcdonalds

The purpose of the communication was to inform its global markets of the upcoming changes that are about to be rolled out and the major goal they have accomplished with their children’s well being and nutritional information change plan. McDonald’s wants to let the public know that they are a trusted brand that has made huge steps to meet its environmental and social responsibilities for the health and well being of its customers. In addition to the customers base, McDonalds message was being delivered to it’s investors, the public, stockholders, organizational partners, Food and Health Association, & and government agencies that represent health and children's advocacy groups. This communication will briefly explain some of those plans.

The reputation of Taco Bell was threatened in 2011 when a lawsuit was filed against them based on the beef used in their food. A resident Amanda Obney of California complained that Taco Bell advertised and labeled their meat used in tacos as beef when it was not authentic meat but a filling (Caulfield, 2011). Amanda claims to have purchased food items from Taco Bell and as a result, suffered pain and injury due to the beef in their food. There was then a consumer rights action suit filed that challenged the practice of representing consumer with a product that is unknown or unidentifiable to consumers. Taco Bell was accused of referring to the filling as seasoned ground beef and seasoned beef when a substantial amount of the meat was against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards.

This lawsuit had impact on both the business world and the rules of the law. McDonald's was forced to reexamine its policy. McDonald's was aware of the risk and hazard, but undertook nothing to mitigate or reduce the risk of injury. The company knew about burn hazards and continued to serve coffee hot to save money and get away with cheaper grade coffee. After reexamining their policy, McDonald's has been serving coffee at a temperature low enough not to cause immediate third-degree burns. This

I believe that George and Mary do have a valid case to file against the Don's fast food restaurant.  There is a reason that Don’s restaurant is providing burgers and food for the high schools locality which has been contracted with the school authorities. From the results of the health department’s survey showing that the food from Don’s is causing the children to develop high cholesterol and obesity, with George and Mary’s son being one of those children. There are many legal arguments which can help in the favor of the plaintiff’s case.

Mc Donald’s should offer healthy alternatives in every country as long as customers accept and buy them. If customers do not want healthy options, Mc Donald’s should offer other alternatives such like sport programs or simple information packages. Scientific research clearly proofs that fast food, consumed on a regular basis, is extremely unhealthy. Mc Donald’s could be said to have an ethical responsibility to educate its customers about fast food and healthy alternatives.

In a 2003 court case, “Caesar Barber v. McDonald’s Corporation, et al.,” Barber claimed he was unaware of the nutritional and fat content of the fast food he ate on a near-daily basis for decades, and which he claimed caused his multiple illnesses (Daily Caller). The people of the court ruled that Barber’s choice of food was the cause of his many health issues, not the restaurants which supplied the fast food. In this case, the court held the consumer responsible for his selections; however, the court’s expectation of personal responsibility in food selection will most likely become anachronous. The article “Is Fast Food the New Tobacco?” addresses the issue of rapidly growing fast-food chain restaurants, such as McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell, and the health issues that perpetuate from an increased amount of these restaurants. Anywhere we travel today, out of town, to a big city or a small village, consumers are bound to see some sort of advertising for fast food. Many billboards display life-size pictures of steaming hot sandwiches, fresh-cut fries, or an ice cold beverage. The streets are lined with bright, golden arches, fluorescent bells, or a red-headed, smiling little girl. All of these modes of advertisement draw consumers in, whether they be hungry or simply in a rush with no time to cook dinner at home, and feed them food that just isn’t up to par with healthy-eating standards. Notice, these restaurants don’t use force to bring customers in by the masses;

The breach of contract filed by McDonalds against Simon Marketing was eventually tossed out of court as the US District Justice ruled the case did not belong in federal court. Simon Marketing filed suit against McDonalds on October 23, 2001 asking for 1.9 billion in damages on charges of fraud, breach of contract, breach of licensing agreement and defamation. Simon Marketing alleged that by keeping them in the dark during the nearly year long FBI investigation, McDonald’s ran a fraudulent campaign to intentionally destroy Simon for its own public relations and financial benefit.” (Anonymous, 2002, para. 3-6).

Facts: Matt Theurer was an 18 year old adult that worked at McDonald’s part time. His friends and family worried about him because he had many extra-curricular activities, worked for the National Guard, and worked for McDonalds. McDonald’s informal policy did not allow high school students to work more than one midnight shift per week or split shifts. There was a special clean-up week McDonald’s held, Theurer worked five nights. One night he worked until midnight, another until 11:30pm, two nights until 9pm, and another until 11pm. On Monday, April 4th, 1988, Theurer worked from 3:30 until 7:30pm, followed by the clean up shift beginning at midnight

The case is about whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. Similar to the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); the right to sleep and bare arms for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald a retired maintenance engineer brought a suit against the City of Chicago for depriving him from his Second Amendment right to bare arms. In 1982 a law was passed in the City of Chicago banning registrations for hand guns. But, there is also a requirement by state law to have all firearms registered, making it impossible for McDonald to own/register disown guns.

•In the recent times McDonalds has been blamed for the high fat content in its products and many consumers perceive that the food served at their outlets is not healthy. Also, the consumers are becoming increasingly health conscious these days. McDonalds

The jury applied the law correctly since it was determined that McDonald’s was acting outside the parameters of peers, had been previously warned of and settled cases associated with scald burns, and did not properly or clearly notify patrons of the level of severity of the inherent danger. The standard of proof for success exists such that “the plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew or should have known that, without a warning, the product would be dangerous in its ordinary use…” (Kubasek, et. al., in Hartigan, ed., 2004, p. 172). In this case, the temperature of the item and the inadequate marking of the container, in the

McDonalds is very focused on the standards of the legal aspects. This is the case because McDonalds has dealt with many lawsuits since the corporation has been created. For example, in the famous coffee case,

All in all, the case has shown that although McDonald’s needed to adopt to certain industry changes in

In addition, McDonald’s has been facing a series of lawsuits and defamations. An example of such

The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a California mother of two, sued McDonald’s overly exploiting children market on Oct 2010 (Dan, 2011).She claimed that McDonald’s gave out alluring toys that come with the meals in order to lure kids into unhealthy diet. The mother also stated that “McDonald’s make it so much harder to say no to her kids when they are really want those toys” (York, 2010). The CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) confirmed that “kids do not have the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of advertising” (York, 2010). Later on, the ban of serving Happy Meals