Ford And Firestone Case

842 Words 4 Pages
Firestone is a tire manufacturer who makes tire for many automakers such as Ford and Mazda. Firestone was faced with problems regarding the integrity of their tires. In May 2000, the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued a letter to Ford Motor Company and Firestone Inc. asking for information regarding the high incidents of tire failures on the Ford Explorer. In August 2000, Firestone recalled all Radial ATX, ATX 11 and Wilderness AT tires due to major concerns regarding tread separation, accidents, injury and death. Firestone recalled over 6.5 million tires. These tires were on certain Ford Explorer SUVs, Mercury Mountaineer, Ford Ranger pickup trucks, Mazda Navajo and B-series pickup trucks. The majority of the incidents …show more content…
The Contractual Theory is “the view that the relationship between a business firm and its customers is essentially a contractual relationship, and the firm’s moral duties to those created by this contractual relationship” (Velasquez 308). In this case, both Ford and Firestone violated this main principle. According to the contractual theory business firms has four main moral duties to the consumers. The duties are complying with the terms of the sales contract, disclosing the nature of the product, avoiding misrepresentation and avoiding the use of duress and undue influence (Velasquez 309). Ford voided the contract with its customer by not providing a vehicle that was safe and with suitable tires. It was evident, according to the article Ford and Firestone knew about the flaws in the tires for almost a year prior to the recall, however, the recall did not begin until the NHTSA launched their investigations. On the other hand, Firestone also voided the contract because Ford was their customer and they provided inadequate tires. Neither companies informed the customers about the problems with the vehicle and the tires. The tire recall was possibly the largest auto safety recall in history. It has raised ethical questions for both Ford and Firestone …show more content…
Ford did not live up to, the implied claims about their vehicle and they definitely did not exercise due care to prevent people from being injured by their products. Ford was negligent and did not inform its customers of the possibly rollover issues facing the Ford Explorer. Even though they replaced tires on over 45,000 vehicles in the Middle East and other countries with hot temperatures. Ford and Firestone analyze 63 vehicles in the Southwestern US and knowing that there issues still concluded that the tires were safe. However, Firestone has been just as unfair as Ford the concluded that “there was a correlation between heat and the tire problems and also blamed the motorist for not keeping the tires properly inflated (Firestone case study). On one hand, Firestone exercised due care by offering free inspection of tires that were not covered by the initial recall. Firestone should have informed their customers of the tire separation

Related Documents