Caveat Emptor

Two current news items have me wondering about the responsibility of U.S. consumers and of the manufacturing or service companies.  I think it's time for us to remember the adage, "Let the buyer beware."

The more dominant of the two news items to which I refer is the recall of children's toys made in China.  The reason is that paint containing lead was applied to toys made for the U.S. market.  Can we blame the Chinese manufacturer?  No, not if lead paints are still allowed in China.  Can we blame the U.S. company (Mattel) that ordered the toys?  Yes, to a point.  On the one hand, it is understandable if they assumed that no paints contain lead any more, since they have been prohibited in the U.S. for over 30 years, so how were they to know that the Chinese still use them?  On the other hand, they do have responsibility for two reasons.  1) Knowing that they are dealing with a foreign company, they should have researched the materials to be used, not just look at a pretty, finished product and ask how cheaply it could be made.  2) The product specifications should have said that no lead-based paints were to be used.  Now we have a massive product recall, unsatisfied consumers, and (in our lawsuit-happy country) the potential for an exorbitant class-action suit.

I just touched on something that really torques me off.  Yeah, but I meant other than being lawsuit-happy.  I said "specifications".  How often have you heard someone say, "Damn low-bid phone," or something similar?  It's not the phone's fault; it was made to specifications.  If Company A says they can make you a widget for ten cents, and Company B says they can make widgets for twenty cents, why shouldn't you save fifty percent and do business with Company A?  On the other hand, if you want your widgets to be made of tungsten carbide and be ten mils thick, Company B will say, "That's what we can give you," but Company A might say, "In that case, our price will be twenty-five cents per widget."  You get what you ask for.

Speaking of which... (I love how I can segue seamlessly between examples.)

A man is suing McDonald's (target sighted:  multi-million dollar corporation) for serving him cheese on his sandwich, even though he has a cheese allergy.  The sandwich in question is a Quarter Pounder, which normally contains cheese.  There isn't a similar, cheese-free sandwich, so it's not a case of, "Why didn't you order a hamburger rather than a cheeseburger?"  Also, we must consider that this is not Burger King, whose slogan is, "Have it your way."  (I have not looked into how much leeway McDonald's allows its franchises when making sandwiches that might fall outside of specifications.)  Maybe even (dare I imagine?) the employee who prepared the sandwich made a mistake.  Is that worth suing the entire corporation for negligence?  (Hmm, I ended up griping about lawsuit-happy, too.)

Now let's look at the customer.  Even if this was his first visit to McDonald's, or if he thought he'd try that sandwich for the first time, why didn't he know or find out if it contained cheese?  I know a few people with various food allergies, and every single one of them will not eat food known to contain the allergy-causing ingredient or without asking before trying it.  I have seen numerous packaged foods whose labels warn that the item contains or was produced in a facility that also produces foods which contain whey, gluten, peanuts, tree nuts, MSG, etc.  I presume that people who know they have allergies peruse the labels before opening the product, to see if the food might cause any adverse reactions.  Why didn't this man, knowing he has a cheese allergy, do the same?  According to this news story, he ate the sandwich at home, in a dark room.  Still, why didn't he check the sandwich when he unwrapped it?  Could he not feel for the cheese slice before opening his mouth?  How dark was the room that a light-orange cheese slice did not stand out from the brown meat, red ketchup, and green pickle?  Simply put, he is a boob who doesn't accept responsibility for his own actions.  He brings to mind the bumper sticker (I am not making this up) which reads, "Some people are alive simply because it's against the law to kill them."