"Has been a lifesaver so many times!"
- Catherine Rampell, student @ University of Washington
"Exactly the help I needed."
- Jennifer Hawes, student @ San Jose State
"The best place for brainstorming ideas."
- Michael Majchrowicz, student @ University of Kentucky
o Relevant facts:
o James Peterson claims his eyes had been damaged by acid in a bottle of eye drops, purchased at a Heartland Discount Store.
o Test did not indicate that acid was present.
o Margins are already slim.
o Additional losses wouldn’t be good for this year’s performance goals.
o Rumors of a takeover attempt.
o No other complaints about the eye drops.
o Jonathan Vincent – job at stake.
o Heartland Discount Stores – Stores will go out of business.
o Heartland Discount Stores employees and managers – jobs at stake.
o Company’s legal and operations staff – jobs at stake.
o James Peterson – Affect by product.
o Customers – Safety of products
o Suppliers – lost company distributor.
o Rumors of a takeover.
o Letting customers return merchandise unconditionally.
o J. Peterson could be faking the injury.
o Not certain it was their product that caused injury.
o Major Ethical Issue:
o Should Heartland Discount Stores take their eye drops off the shelf?
o Economic, Legal, and Ethical Responsibilities:
o Economic – Produce a safe product.
o Ethical – To take care of the problem.
o Legal – to have a legal and operations staff on hand.
o Ethical Reasoning Principle:
o Since there is no proof that it was a Heartland Discount Store product that damaged James Peterson’s eye, they should take this case to court. I feel it would be fair for both parties if this case is dealt with legal actions. If it was their product, take it off the shelf. If not, keep it on the shelf.
o Legal action.
o Take the product off the shelf.
o Not pull the product off the shelf.
View Full Essay