Liebeck vs. McDonald's

Liebeck vs. McDonald’s

The last time I had a debate was in my 4th year in high school where we had to justify whether or not the OFW program should be halted. It is very much fresh in my head since it was only a mere 2 years ago and I can still remember the process of being in it as well as the adrenaline I felt.

In CSRGOVE, the debate itself is very timely for me since I am currently taking BUSLAW1 which tackles Obligations and Contracts and as I read through the facts of the case, I am able to apply such lessons since the side I belong to is McDonald’s. Being McDonald’s lawyers, it was hard for our group to come up with the strongest arguments. Since this happened in real life, and we naturally were the losing team, we were somehow demoralized by how weak we may get yet we still tried our best to dig up the facts and point out as much inconsistencies as we can to the jury. I have come to realize how Liebeck won the case, and it evolves around ethics of care. McDonald’s were at fault for failing to ensure these issues won’t rise, yet at the same time, they were also very efficient in their service. From the process of making coffee, to the production of coffee cups, McDonald’s was innocent in terms of their services. Yet, an unfortunate event happened, which we pointed out to be from Liebeck and her grandson’s negligence.

I enjoyed the debate because I was really looking forward to it since it is my first experience of a debate in college and in DLSU. It is good training and practice to face the fright of public speaking as well as controlling your emotions in times of distress. I commend my group for doing such a good job and for winning the debate because honestly, being McDonald’s lawyers is very hard since in a true to life scenario, we could have lost. I am very proud of the overall turn out of the debate, it was an experience to remember.

#Entry4