Tri-Star's Ethical Issues

One can define ethics as a concept that constitutes what is good for the individual and for society, as well as establishes the nature of obligations, or duties, that people owe themselves as well as others. In the case pertaining to Tri-Star, specifically regarding the president of the company, there were various ethical issues that came into play. Looking at the legal aspects of this case, consumers of Tri-Stars' phones are indeed entitled to full refunds for their defective devices. On top of this, these phones are a liability to users, and their safety is put at risk by keeping these explosive devices. That being said, those who sustain injuries as a result of their phones exploding can potentially sue Tri-Star in a product liability suit

Those who purchased the defective phones will likely be eligible to receive either a full refund or an exchange for a device of equal value. Product liability; although it is less strict in Canada, is a concept that attempts to hold a seller liable for a defective product that it sells. Even though this is not as strictly enforced in Canada, it is likely that Tri-Star would indeed be held accountable in this situation, and one can examine the case of Samsung's exploding Galaxy Note 7 devices to further confirm this. Anyone who purchased a Note 7 prior to Samsung issuing the recall of these devices was and is eligible to receive a full refund or exchange. There is also a legal theory known as implied warranty of merchantability. A breach of the implied warranty of merchantability occurs when a seller sells a defective product that was defective when it leaves their control. If this defective product then causes injury to the user, the user can hold the seller liable for the damage caused by that defective product. It is clear that Tri-Star would therefore have a lot of law suits being filed against them for any injuries sustained as a result of their explosive phones, and this poses many problems for the

For one, the president should have known; as a reasonable person if her position would have known, the repercussions of doing so. Even though it is not illegal to do so, skipping the safety testing is dangerous, as the devices being released could be faulty in numerous ways. In this case, the batteries ended up overheating and exploding. These explosions can easily; and likely did; cause injuries to consumers. Therefore, the president knowingly put consumers at risk of injury. These consumers who suffered injuries would then be able to sue Tri-Star for causing these injuries as a result of negligence by skipping the safety testing, and they would likely win these law suits, especially if numerous people attempt to sue as well. Looking at this from an ethical standpoint, the president mistreated her legal staff by forcing them to either approve the skipping of the safety testing or face termination, putting them in a rather difficult spot. She also mistreated consumers by abusing their trust that they will be receiving a product that would be safe for ordinary use. Based on ethics alone, the president is clearly in the wrong in this case, as she placed the importance of the product itself over the safety and well-being of consumers, as well as the treatment of those who work for