Question

These questions are what I have pertaining to The McDonalds' Coffee Case that happened in 1992. (Liebeck v. McDonalds)

1) what in good faith was McDonald's responsibility and the defendants?

2) whether McDonald's or the defendant breached their obligation?

3) what the cause of the situation was?

4) what remedy if any should have been given to the defendant?

Answer 1

Answer 1

The first and the foremost responsibilty of Mc donald's and defandants was to provide coffee which is not so hot for the customer to drink. In shot they have to serve less hot coffee to customer. The idea could be to provide warning in the styrofoam cup to the customer but Mc donald did not take any intiative to provide warning to customers. This clearly indiates thats Mc. donanlds and company did not have idea about the temperature that can create burns.

Answer 2

To be honest, It was the Mc. donald who breached his obligation. it was him on whose account the obligation arises to provide full satisfaction to the customers on account of foods and bevarages. The customer expects the best quality of food and bevarages which is safe for them and its thr obligation and respnsibilty of Mc doanald to provide 100 percent consumer satisfaction and give them burns in returns. Mc donalds always say that "customers are the only reason for their existence" , is this is so then the first obligation arises for Mr Mcdonald's.

Answer 3

  A 79 years old lady namely stella lieback, who ordered a 49 cent coffee from the franchiese of Mc donald's. Suddenly she spilled the coffee on her lap which was really very hot which ultimately results in the burns of her lap. She filed a suit against the Mc. donald's in the court from where this case got its existence.

Answer 4

The redemy held by the court was according the mistake on part of Mc donalds and liebeck. It was held by the court that Mc. Donald's is around 80-85 percent responsible for thr cause of the issue and around 15-20 percent was due to fault of the customer.

Still liebeck was awarded $200000 by the Mc donalds as a compensation that arises due to his mistake. But it was later reduced to $160000 as around 20 percent was fault of the liebeck also.

The court also appealed Mc. donald to give her Punitive damges to lieback to around $500000. (Punitive damages are the damges which are awarded to defendant in addition of original compensation)

PLEASE GIVE YOUR VALUABLE REVIEWS ABOUT THE ANSWER IN THE COMMENT BOX AND YOU CAN ALSO GIVE THUMBS UP IF YOU LIKE THE ANSWER.

THANK YOU.