Ford And Firestone Case Study

1607 Words7 Pages
The contract includes the purchaser entering into a voluntary contract with a business when they purchase their merchandises. The business then has a moral duty to the customer in respects to safety, design and dependability. Both, Ford and Firestone voluntarily entered into a sales agreement with the customers of their goods. Both, businesses were in breach of their moral obligations to these clients. Ford failed to deliver a safe and dependable product to their clients. Ford was aware of the dependability issues of the tires and was also aware of the manufacturing design flaw that made the possibility for accidents. Ford made the decision to drop the air pressure in the tires to help avoid problems. Firestone was not expected to manufacture…show more content…
They should have set back the first launch date of the product in order to remake the product. They should have taken responsibility for the construction flaw instead of pushing all the blame on Firestone. Ford would have been more contented switching all the tires from the beginning, it would have saved them cash in the end contrasted to all the customers they lost due to bad marketing. Firestone may well have also acted otherwise. They should have instantly told Ford to recollect the tires when they knew they failed in hotter weathers. They could have designed a safer tire to help invalidate the design flaws in the Explorer. If Ford and Firestone would had worked together on product enhancement, many harms and deaths would have been avoided. Firestone should have carefully supervised the quality in the Decatur factory since they knew the vastly skilled employees were…show more content…
Besides, Firestone should have concentrated more on research, improvement and executed more thorough testing under several conditions to confirm the performance of their tires. Fulfilling customer’s demanded stipulations may be the only right way to provide customer satisfaction. Then again, Firestone should have willingly worked closely with Ford Manufacturer’s to understand their preferred type of tires, this may have avoided extra problems with the Explorer. When Firestone knew about the problems with the Explorer and their tires, especially in hot climates e.g. Arizona or Middle East nations, voluntarily they should have joined in removing and changing their suspected defected tires from the market. Firestone should have performed their own research on the tread separation failings when they heard in 1993 about the filed five lawsuits. This would have been years before the investigation of the NHTSA in May, 2001 and would have stopped the growing drift of tread separation cases that resulted in

More about Ford And Firestone Case Study

Open Document