Case Study On Mcdonald's Restaurant

784 Words4 Pages
In this week’s case study, we learned about a lawsuit against McDonald’s restaurant that involved a seventy-nine-year-old woman and hot coffee. The case went to court and in the end Liebeck the seventy-nine-year-old woman was awarded $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 punitive damages. In this paper, we will explore a few different things, we will define caveat emptor and examine who is responsible for Liebeck’s burns. Does the fact that she is seventy-five justifies a caveat emptor attitude? We will close by defining what it means to claim that an implicit contract arises around a transaction.
Caveat Emptor is the principle that the buyer alone is responsible for checking the quality and suitability of goods before a purchase is made. (Caveat Emptor, n.d.). For example, items sold in a garage sale can be considered under the terms of caveat emptor because they are “sold as is.” The question is, “should Liebeck be responsible for the third-degree burns caused by the hot coffee?” If we were to follow the caveat emptor principles the customer should have check how hot the coffee was prior to opening the lid to pour cream and sugar. However, I still believe that the restaurant is responsible to a certain extent. McDonald’s admitted that they served their coffee at 185 degrees, which will burn the mouth and throat of customers and is about 50 degrees higher than homemade coffee. (The Actual Facts about the McDonalds Coffee Case, n.d.).
Nothing against elder people,
Open Document