"" In this case, Ford can be held in violation of breaching their duty to comply with the consumer. Their duty to comply is defined as; the most basic moral duty that a business firm owes its customers, according to the contract view is the duty to provide consumers with a product that lives up to those claims that the firm expressly made about the product, which led the customer to enter the contract freely and which formed the customer's understanding concerning what he or she was agreeing to buy (3). .
In the opening segment of this case, it is was made aware, only an accusation though, that in 1977, Ford Motor Company had known for eight years that the Ford Pinto's gas tank was a safety issue, but they didn't want to address it because it would take too much time, and cost too much money. It was also stated that Ford had used some dishonest tactics to delay the performing of a government safety standard which would have forced Ford to modify their current gas tank on the Pinto. Again, these are allegations in the opening portion of this case, but it was stated that the knowledge of this issue by Ford was established by undisclosed documents. If these allegations were ingenuous, then Ford Motor Company's duty to comply was contravened. Ford had misrepresented the Pinto, and neglected to disclose the nature of the Pinto to the consumer with whom they had made a "sales contract- with. Ford's honest contractual agreement with the consumer was to provide a suitable, safe, and reliable good. .
From a product safety standpoint, I feel that Ford has let down not only society (the consumer), but also themselves as well. A safe product to the consumer is very important according to the contractual theory. It is the moral duty of Ford to provide a product to the consumer whose use involves no greater threat than what the merchant (Ford) explicitly communicates to the consumer. It's stated by Velasquez that implied and express claims of product safety refer to the degree of risk associated with using a product.
