Ethical Issues behind The Class Action - Essay Example

Legal vs. Ethical Issues Behind The Action” Movie When there is a business, there always is a law behind it. This means that everything that abusiness owner decides on, from the name to call its brand, the materials used for its products, or perhaps what to reflect on one’s marketing strategies such as advertisements should follow a certain rule or regulation before it is publicized or made available in stores. This is because of the becoming powerful consumer protection that should be served at all times. With this, consumer protection laws have been made based on government regulatory framework which is specialized to protect the consumers from physical, mental, emotional, or any kind of harm caused by business owners. One of which could be the rampant issue of deceptive advertising where people nowadays are being shown half truths reflected in any kind of advertisement, from print, radio, to television. Consumer protection laws are indeed very important to have because of the fact that when it comes to any kind of commercial dealings, we would realize that private or publicly owned companies would have greater knowledge about their products or services offered, thus, gaining them a stronger bargaining power while individual consumers would just have to take that risk to spend money over something that they hope would be worth it and at the same time beneficial for a specific need. That is why regulators have mandated that to be able to achieve total transparency between the two parties involved, having protection laws starting from the formation of one’s product by conducting cost-benefit studies to its marketing strategies, whatever it would cost. Applying this knowledge to the situation presented in the film “Class Action”, there really are a lot of ethical and legal issues that would surround it. To give you an idea of what the movie centered on, it was actually about a lawsuit concerning the damages caused by a faulty automobile that caused death and at the same time a permanent damage to other people’s lives as well (Class Action, 1991). Relating this situation to the facts stated in “Relationship with Consumers” chapter 8, one would clearly see the need to be able to consider doing a cost-benefit analysis on any kind of product one is about to sell to consumers even if it means that one would have to spend more than the predicted damage cost by an unsure product. Though it is legal for companies to not pursue the changes reflected in any kind of cost benefit study on a certain product if the cost of perhaps using a certain kind of material that is safer for consumers would be costlier than the probable damage it would bring if in any case the decision not to realize the results of the study would harm anyone, there would always be a question on what ought to be done really (Halbert 2008, p. 282). Indeed, it always fights with the ethical responsibility of any company to be able to make sure that the product they sell to consumers will at all times be safe and not harm them. In the case reflected in “Class Action”, the automobile company indeed did what the laws or the government regulations stated, doing a safety study and run on their line of automobile, however, stretching out the guarantee that the car would always be safe around people no matter what conditions are involved was clearly sacrificed. They somehow did not take consideration to all the factors that would ensure the consumer’s protection because it would hurt the budget of the company and was deemed to be unnecessary because the probability of having their dreaded malfunction of the car is too little and the cost of damage would cost them less. Another factor about the principles stated in “Relationship With Consumers” that is seen in the movie is the fact that the automotive company would need to be held liable for what has happened because of the fact that they just were able to fulfill their duty on the government by making sure they did safety studies however, they did not quite fulfill their duty towards the consumers which is the more important party in this case because they would be the one to be using their products and would be affected (Furmston & Chuah 2010, p. 67). When you come to think of it, which would be more important, fulfilling legal duties or ethical ones? It is really proper for a company to go for what their cost benefit study instructed them to direct their actions to rather than putting primary importance to the lives that it would take away or let alone the permanent damage it would cause a certain person’s life? Well, it is always a battle between what is legal and what is ethical (Nelson 2005, p. 190). However, looking at what our society and our laws would say, which among the two should be heard? Well, it is never a choice between the two because we both have a set of responsibilities for each. Thus, in the case presented in the film, it is really obvious that the firm or the automobile company had fallen short in many ways such as in the fact that even when they conducted cost benefit analysis in their product where they have taken consideration on the effect on human safety or life by choosing to put primary importance to the savings the company would make, they erred by putting such a low value on humans thus, causing the need for this case to arise in the first place. However, safety on any kind or nature of product should never be considered as an acceptable risk no matter how little the implications would show in any research (Cheeseman 2010, p. 75). Forgetting the criminal implications that were described in the film, there are also some laws applicable to the case based on the English Tort law point of view. First of all, one of the things stated in the Tort law would be that an individual or a group of people may be owed duty of care by another party in cases when they are faced with unreasonable harm or loss (Duty of care in English law, 2011). If in any case that this duty is breached, the party responsible for which would be imposed to compensate or pay for whatever damages caused or losses the other party has incurred. If this law is applied in the film, the company still, just as what has been mentioned above would be owed to pay for all the damages and loss the owner of the automobile and his or her family would have to go through. This clearly would not change the fact that the automobile was produced by the automobile company which makes them liable for anything that would happen to the car based on the internal decisions they have made. One would not be able to say that perhaps the tragic death of the owner of the car in the film has contributed or triggered the car to explode because based on the criminal report of the situation, there is not reasonable evidence that would make this true. In this case, it would indeed be pure omission of the car company that caused the tragic death of the victim of the explosion. This omission would surely be to underestimate the regulations made for the protection of consumers (Woodroffe 2010, p. 301). Another law applicable to the case based on the English Tort law point of view would be the vicarious liability in English law which imposed liability on employers for the wrongdoings of their employees. This means that whatever the employees would commit related to their duties to a company and to society as well, the employers are highly responsible for them (Duty of care in English law, 2011). Thus, in relation to this case, the employers would definitely not be able to get away with the reasoning that it might not be their fault as a company but the person who is responsible with pushing the decision to still go through the production of that certain automobile despite the probable threats that comes with it. We all know that though the real owner of the automotive company did not suggest the idea or perhaps just had his set of trusted employees who are deemed knowledgeable with what they are doing just go on with the decision making while all he or she does is to fund the project, the company as a whole would still be greatly responsible for repaying the damages and losses of the victims of the said car malfunction as a company would always be liable for whatever actions they permit. A company would also have to dig deep into their processes and the reasonability of their decisions in relation to society and most importantly the consumers that use their product. Looking at the big picture of this case, one would be able to back up the should be verdict to this case which would be the total liability and responsibility of the company towards the accident by looking at the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant which stresses on having to act not simply as duty demands but at the same time having a motivation to do one’s duty, which is to consider what is ought to be done, not for a personal benefit or interest (Ethical Theories of Immanuel Kant, 2009). This is often seen in companies today especially when the need to be cost efficient battles with the need for corporate social responsibility. Relating this ethical theory to this case, it would clearly, still make the company liable for the death of the consumer due to their car malfunction as the company chose to do their duty to follow what their cost benefit study directed them to, which is to choose the better deal when it comes to monetary aspects as the cost of having to remodel or restructure their car would be more costly than the probable deaths if in case their certain car model fails. However, this would show us clearly that this company has proven the almost often disunited principle of what is legal to what is ethical as they deemed their decision of following what would be best for their company, which is to stick to the make of their car because it is more cost efficient and sacrificing that small percentage of a failure, which in this case have cost a permanent damage and loss in some consumer’s life. Indeed, though the company chose to fulfill their duty by performing a cost benefit study where the result suggested that it was best to stick with their current car and produce it, what ought to be done, which is to make sure that no one is ever going to be harmed was taken for granted. Indeed, this case would just prove that one small wrong move on a certain detail of any business decision would affect any company not only with regard to their faulty product line but would go deeper such marring their image, credibility, and their project management ability. Thus, cost efficiency is never the end goal of every decision a company makes. References: Michael A. (2005). Class Action. America: 20th Century Fox. Film. Nelson, B. (2005). Law and Ethics in Global Business. USA & Canada: Routledge. Halbert, I. (2008). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. USA: South Western Pub. Woodroffe, L. (2010). Woodroffe and Lowe’s Consumer Protection Law and Practice 8th ed. United Kingdom: Sweet and Maxwell. Furmston M, & Chuah, J. (2010). Commercial and Consumer Law. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Ltd. Cheeseman, H, (2010). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues 7th ed. USA: Pearson College Div. chapters 5,6,42 Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, 2011. Duty of care in English law . [online] Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_care_in_English_law [Accessed 26 November 2011]. The Internet Movie Database, 1991. Class Action. [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101590/ [Accessed 26 November 2011]. Associated Content, 2009. Ethical Theories of Immanuel Kant. [online] Available at: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1970384/the_ethical_theories_of_immanuel_kant.html [Accessed 27 November 2011]. Read More