The Ford/Firestone Case Essays

Ford and Chevrolet (Chevy) are in the automotive industry and have been in completion for many years start back in 1908, both companies started in the state of Michigan and have been battling it out for profits, market share and hometown bragging rights. Ford was founded in the suburb of Dearborn, Michigan and Chevy was founded in Flint, Michigan.

Ford should produce the products that are safe to be used. Besides that, Ford should also be honest to the customer by providing the truth information to the customer. In this case, the most important moral rights is every human being has the inherent right to live. Thus, Ford should disclose the dangerous of their products to the customer.

Ford Motor Company, American automotive corporation founded in 1903 by Henry Ford and 11 associate investors. (htt28) It is the multinational corporation and the world's third largest automaker based on worldwide vehicle sales. The Company operates in two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, and Ford Asia Pacific Africa region. Financial services include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including holding companies and real

Finally, the third reason is a breach of warranty claim. The law implies a warranty by a manufacturer which places its product on the market that the product is reasonably fit for the ordinary purpose for which it was intended. If it is, in fact, defective and not reasonably fit to be used for its intended purpose, the warranty is breached. Ultimately, Nancy Denny won because the court found that defendant had, “breached its implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach was the proximate cause of Nancy Denny's injuries”. Ford may have avoided these liabilities had they marketed the vehicles manual towards off road only, or had they proved product safety was “reasonable” to drive in ordinary circumstances.

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.

A highly popular muscle and sports car, the Ford Mustang functions as a daily driver, weekend warrior, and a show winning work of mechanical art. Whether someone just needs a basic transportation to get from point A to point B, an eight second quarter-mile beast, or a show stopping work of power and beauty, Ford has produced a Mustang for every need.

The Grand Jury initiated a case against Ford after a tragic accident occurred on 10th August 1978 along U.S. Highway 33 near Goshen, involving a 1973 Ford Pinto car that was struck from the rear by a van. On board of the 1973 Ford Pinto there were two sisters (Judy and Lynn Ulrich) and their cousin Donna Ulrich who succumbed to burnt injuries after Pinto’s gas tank ruptured and got into flames in the process.

Ford Motor Company is America's one of the largest car manufacturer and seller. In year 1987 it faces an external business environment change in the form of new warranty policy announcement by its major competitors General Motor, which changes the current philosophy of warranty in U.S car market. This policy change may have implications not only on Ford’s sales and market share but also on various departments within organization (such as manufacturing, quality assurance, parts and service, and extended service plans) and their dealer network. In answer, Ford executives have to respond through a best suitable course of action by carefully analyzing the current market variables.

The plaintiff’s cause of action in this case would be the failure of Porsche to properly supply the 2005 Carrera GT with proper crash preventative measures and passenger safety features to protect the passengers of the car in the foreseeable event of a car crash. As a whole the case would be classified as alleged product liability negligence against Porsche, for failing to provide an electronic stability control system to protect against swerving to prevent crashes in a car that is advertised as a street legal race car. Also for providing side door reinforcements that fall below mass produced vehicles standards due to lack of proper welds and the poor strength of the material used, therefore inadequate to ensure safety of car passenger in the event of a crash. Lastly, for allowing a faulty gas line to be implemented in their

Henry Ford was an engineer from Detroit, Michigan who had an idea. By 1902, Ford had attempted several times to produce a gas powered vehicle, but with little capital, he realized that his attempts were futile. Ford approached a man by the name of Alexander T. Malcomson about the possibility of manufacturing an automobile. Malcomson, a friend of the family and wealthy coal merchant was reluctant at first but finally agreed with Ford, and decided to assit Ford financially with his endeavor. With Malcomsons investment and Ford's engineering skills a partnership was formed and in mid June of 1903, papers of incorporation for the Ford Motor Company were filed in Dearborn, Michigan.

Ford did not approach the question of redesigning the gas tank to make the car safer versus waiting another year allowing the foreign market to dominate subcompact vehicles. Their goal was only to maximize profits. They did not into account the interests of their share holders and when they did come into consideration, they were analyzed against profits. One has nothing to do with the other. Their goal should not have been a race to make the most affordable subcompact car. Their focus should have been to make a subcompact car that was not only most affordable but also the safest subcompact. They were aware of the dangers associated with the rush production. It would have made a difference if the $11 savings had been passed on to the customers because they would've kept their reputation and integrity in tact and possibly gain customers who were not considering the vehicle. Any rational customer would not have chosen to save $11 to drive a car at the risk of dying. It is never appropriate to knowingly jeopardize people's lives. That is a criminal act. Their actions were socially irresponsible, ethically and morally wrong. They did not consider their own reputation nor did they consider that they represented America in the industry.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission, (2012).Ford motor company 10-k . Retrieved from Ford Motor Company website: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=87772&p=irol-SECText

Product recalls have opened the company to numerous lawsuits from consumers that were hurt by the recalled products.

Profitability (performance) ratios are used to assess a company’s ability to create equity as compared to its debt and other appropriate expenses created during a particular time frame. A favorable analysis of profitability ratios will reveal that a company’s value is higher than a competitor’s value.