Because the use of virtually any product involves some degree of risk, questions of safety are essentially questions of acceptable and known levels of risk. That is, a product is safe if its attendant risks are known and judged to be acceptable or reasonable by the buyer in view of the benefits the buyer expects to derive from using the product (4). In this case of the Ford Pinto, I feel that Lee Iacocca and Ford did not communicate any safety concerns with the Pinto to the consumer. Ford did not want to take on any of the extra added costs involved in redesigning its gas tank and fuel system, which would have jeopardized Ford's market place with the Pinto. Not only is this unethical on Ford's part, but I also believe this was Ford's major downfall which landed them in court. This was a great economical car, which is what the United States needed at the time. They were getting a lot of heat from the imports for their compactness, as well as their efficiency. .
It's also stated by Velasquez that there are problems with the Contractual Theory. He states that the main objection to the contract theory focus on the unreality of the assumptions on which the theory is based. First, critics argue, the theory unrealistically assumes that manufacturers make direct agreements with consumers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The manufacturer never enters into any direct contract with the consumer (5). This may be true, but again, you still have a case of morals and ethics. It's not ethically or morally right for an organization to withdraw their duties to disclose important information, and to represent an unsafe product. .
I believe that with the correct safety standards in place, and the compliance of Ford Motor Company, I believe Lee Iacocca, and Ford's duty to comply would have been met with society. Again, it's crucial, when putting out a product, to protect the best interests of the consumer, which is safety, reliability, maintainability, and service life.
