In addition, the recall constitutes an expectation of substantial change before products actually reached consumers, placing it in compliance with 402A. Robins & Robins lived up to its legal and its ethical responsibilities. Question 4

The Blanchard and Peale method of determining ethicality consists of three checks, which can be applied to both the decision to avoid the $0.35 per-package charge to automate recalls and to the "fake" recall process of the company (Lankard, 1991). First, the models asks if the action is legal, both in terms of governmental laws and company policy; the answer for both dilemmas in this case is "yes." The second test is whether the action is balanced and fair, promoting "win-win" solutions; here, the answer in both cases is more ambiguous. The additional costs of medications from the UPC rule would have been passed on to consumers, which is a "lose" to some extent even though it would promote greater safety, and the fake recall would have been win-win for consumers and the company if it had been successful, though as it ended up it was clearly a lose-lose. Finally, this model asks "how would it make me fee" or how would it reflect upon the company; here, the answer is again the same for both companies: the action were not ethical in either case, and if published in a newspaper would definitely be detrimental. The right thing to do now is apologize...

If Robbins & Robbins does not operate at all in Canada, but works through a distributor that purchases the products in the United States and is then responsible for further distribution, etc., Robbins & Robbins might then be successful in its motion, but otherwise they are likely to face the full cost of the suit. Given the cap on the award possible, settling out of court for a lower amount and avoiding the publicity would likely be advantageous.