Paper Example on Comparison of Two Cases of Fraud in Companies

Introduction

In the case of Haeger versus good year tires and rubber company, Haeger had sued the company alleging that the failure of the company's tires caused his vehicle to flip over. After presenting the case in court, the plaintiff ordered the company to produce their internal tire testing report to confirm the claims. The company, however, decided to release the wrong reports so that they could hide the truth. Later on, the plaintiff lawyer realized that despite the plaintiff request for the result, the company had realized the results to a different litigation. Good year company, later on, agreed that they had withheld the information although Haeger had repeatedly requested for the results. The plaintiff, therefore, sought sanctions after discovering the fraud, arguing that he is entitled to be paid the attorney's fees and the cost involved in the underlying legation. The district court, therefore, ordered the company to pay $2.7milion as a suction of bad behavior (Stempel, 2017). The supreme court, on the other hand, reversed and remanded the payment since the district court had ordered the company to pay sides legal fees instead of awarding the plaintiff the loss that the plaintiff incurred due to the misconduct.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the case of pon wonderful versus Coca-Cola, pon wonderful sued Coca-Cola in the federal district court after coca-cola introduced its pomegranate blueberry juice in the year 2007 (White, 2014). Pon wonderful argued that Coca-Cola company was misleading the customers by claiming that their product contained pomegranate and blueberry juice while it contained approximately 99% grape band apple juice and approximately 0.5% pomegranate and blueberry juice(White, 2014). Pom wonderful claimed that Coca-Cola violated the Lanham Act, and the false advertising and the unfair competition laws. The suit particularly challenged Coca-Cola's marketing, labeling, and its advertisements. However, the district court claimed that these claims were barred by another law that is the food drug and cosmetics act. After both teams presented their evidence, the district court ruled in favor of Coca-Cola on the labeling and naming issues. Even after filing for an appeal, the court of appeal also ruled in favor of Coca-Cola by affirming the lower court's decision to bar Pon wonderful claims with respect to labeling and naming of the product. The court however allowed pon wonderful to proceed with the remaining claims.

Was Either of This Company's Guilty of Fraud

Both the pon wonderful and good years tired were guilty of fraud. Pon wonderful was guilty of fraud because it claimed that Coca-Cola violated the Lanham Act by misleading the consumers that their product contained pomegranate and blueberry juice. Pon wonderful therefore tried to sue Coca-Cola under the wrong laws so that they could benefit themselves by minimizing the level of competition in the market(White, 2014). On the other hand, good year tire company was guilty of fraud because despite being requested to produce the internal tire test report they decided to hide the report information so that they could protect the company's reputation. Later on, it became clear that they committed a fraud after the plaintiff lawyer realized that the company had concealed the information.

Which Factors, Behavior, or Actions Would You have Done Differently if You Were in Charge of the Companies?

If I was in charge of pon wonderful company, I would have established a suitable law that would have been in line with the violations committed by Coca-Cola company. This would have helped me to create a firm case against the Coca-Cola company since I would have had enough evidence to support my claims. On the other hand, if I was in charge of good year company, I would have produced the correct tire test report to avoid getting the fines. Producing the right report would also have enabled the company to correct its mistake, for instance, through to improving on the quality of the tiers.

Apply at Least Two Ethical Theories to Each Case to Support how You Would have Acted Differently.

In the case of good year tire company and Haeger, I would have used the utilitarian and deontology theory. The utilitarian theory would have enabled me to predict the consequences of not realizing the right report (Gray, 2009) while the deontology theory would have enabled me as the company's leader to do or take the right action that brings about a positive solution (Anderson, Anderson, & Armen, 2005). In the case between pon wonder and Coca-Cola, I would have used the virtue theory and the utilitarian theory to guide me in making a firm case that does not seem to benefit either party.

References

Anderson, M., Anderson, S., & Armen, C. (2005). Towards machine ethics: Implementing two action-based ethical theories. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics (pp. 1-7). Retrieved from https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Fall/2005/FS-05-06/FS05-06-001.pdf

Gray, M. (2009). Moral sources and emergent ethical theories in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 40(6), 1794-1811.retrived from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c2c1/db7a5327aea2e88ce6813c277105f5799470.pdf

Stempel, J. W. (2017). Asymmetry and Adequacy in Discovery Incentives: The Discouraging Implications of Haeger v. Goodyear. Akron L. Rev., 51, 639. Retrieved from https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2424&context=akronlawreview

White Jr, S. J. (2014). How Far does the Apple (Pomegranate) Fall from the Tree-Preclusion of Lanham Act Claims by the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act and Pom Wonderful, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co. Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell. Prop. L., 15, 262. Retrieved from https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wakfinp15&div=14&id=&page