Week 5 replies

timer Asked: Nov 28th, 2016

Question description

Post 1 Chara wrote this:

Analyze the facts of the case in conjunction with the week’s learning

The case that I analyzed is: “New Balance Pays Fat Settlement in
Toning Shoes Lawsuit to People It Did Not Slim”. In 2011 a
Massachusetts judge agreed to let New Balance pay $2.3 million to
settle false advertising claims filed against the company by three
women, Kimberly Carey, Victoria Molinarolo and Shannon Dilbeck who
received up to $5,000 each and anyone else who joined the class action
lawsuit received a $100 refund for each pair of toning shoes they
purchased. New Balance’s shoes, retailed at approximately $100 each
and were introduced in 2010 as stylish toning shoes that looked like
regular sneakers. New Balance claimed its TrueBalance and Rock&Tone
lines “activated” certain lower body muscles with soles that made it
hard to stay balanced, as if the wearer was running on sand, according
to the original class-action complaint.

New Balance called its shoes a “hidden beauty secret,” and promised
that they helped the wearer burn 8% more calories than regular
sneakers. However, the women claimed that the company’s advertising
was deceptive and according to their lawyers, “Wearing the Toning
Shoes provides no additional activation to the gluteus, hamstring or
calf muscles, and does not burn any additional calories”. Scientists
were also concerned that wearing the Toning Shoes may lead to injury,
a fact which New Balance deceptively omitted from its advertising.”
The deceptive marketing influenced thousands of people to purchase
$252 million worth of shoes in the first four months of 2010. New
Balance hired Julianne Moore to wear the FitFlop pair of shoes and
hired Kim Kardashian to push the Shape-ups shoes. The Federal Trade
Commission ordered both Skechers and Reebox to pay $40 million in
settlements to duped consumers and advised that these companies may no
longer claim that science backs up their shoes’ weight loss claims
without proof from clinical studies (Hines, 2014).

What facts support the finding of the court?

The fact that supports the courts finding is the Implied Warranty of
Fitness for a Particular Purpose which is a warranty that arises when
a seller or lessor warrants that the goods will meet the buyer’s or
lessee’s expressed needs (Cheeseman, 2016, p. 361).

Who will gain and who will lose in this case?

In this case the Skecher and Reebok loss because they mislead the
consumers who purchased their product based on misleading and false
advertisement without testing their product and providing clinical
proof per the FTC. The three ladies and other consumers who joined
the class action lawsuit won because they were able to prove that the
product did nothing for their gluteus, hamstring or calf muscles, and
it did not burn any additional calories (Hines, 2014).

What would you have done differently?

I would have conducted a test or medical study on the shoes to prove
that the shoes worked as advertised. In the case that they did not
strengthen hamstrings, gluteus, and calf muscles, then I would have
added a disclaimer in my advertisement ad indicating such and follow
all of the rules as outlined by the FTC. I also would not have hired
celebrities to market my shoes that lead the consumer to believe they
would end up with a body like Kim Kardashian from wearing the shoes.


Cheeseman, H. (2016). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online
Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (Ninth Ed.).

Hines, A. (2012). New Balance Pays Fat Settlement in Toning Shoes
Lawsuit to People It Did Not Slim. Retrieved on November 25, 2016 from

Post 2: Joshua wrote this

For this week, I found kind of an interesting case.
Basically Nestle Purina PetCare Co. filed a suit against Blue Buffalo
Co., which is one of its rivals, both make pet food. Nestle accused
Buffalo of false advertising by stating that their food did not
contained poultry byproducts, even though it apparently did. Buffalo
attempted to blame its food suppliers, and said that their
distributors hid the fact that their food contained byproduct meat,
instead of “high- quality” chicken and turkey. Buffalo accused their
supplier, Wilbur-Ellis Co and Diversified Ingredients Inc, saying they
created a breach of their contract.

What facts support the finding of the court?

The court ruled in favor of the suppliers, stating
that once the product is distributed, it would not be a breach of
contract, but a breach of warranty. The judge specifically talked
about how states laws and UCC contracts showed that the breach of
contract would not stand because the buyer had accepted the purchase.
If Buffalo had rejected the product, when delivered to them, it would
have been a breach in their contracts.

Who will gain and who will lose in this case?

In this instance, the suppliers won and Buffalo lost.
That being said the initial argument that started with Nestle, is
still ongoing.

What would you have done differently?

I don’t think I would have done anything different.
The judge clearly stated why it was not considered a breach in the
supplier’s contract, and based on that argument, the solution seemed
pretty reasonable.


Posses, B. S. (2016, September 16). Judge Trims Blue Buffalo's Claims
Against Suppliers - Law360. Retrieved November 26, 2016, from

Reply Email Author

Post 3;: Christopher wrote this:

Social services are chiefly based on “information, referral,
advocacy, and consumer services” (DiNitto & Johnson, 2016). These
services comprise as social welfare policies and are often targeted
towards economically disadvantaged groups, however, most individuals
benefit from social services to some degree regardless of their
socioeconomic backgrounds. Children and older Americans generally
have sufficient welfare systems in both the public and private sector.
This includes agencies, such as child protective services for
children, and Social Security for older Americans. In addition,
non-profit corporations, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation,
provide social services to children. There are also numerous laws,
such as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which protects
children from sexual exploitation, as well as the Older Americans Act
(OAA), that helps older adults obtain social services (DiNitto &
Johnson, 2016). Government bureaucracies, such as the Department of
Education and its respective programs, also theoretically constitutes
as a child welfare practice.

Despite many legislative efforts, there have been practically no
White House conferences on child welfare, and only a handful of
meetings towards older Americans. The first and only conference on
children was in 1909 with President Roosevelt (DiNitto & Johnson,
2016). This led to the establishment of the Children’s Bureau in 1912
under President Taft (DiNitto & Johnson, 2016). Regarding Older
Americans, the OAA essentially paved the way for five White House
conferences on aging, which have all supported the goals of the law.
These conferences ultimately led to fifty resolutions that backed
extending social services for this group.

In analyzing why these trends have occurred, older Americans have
the ability to organize in support of the programs and services they
depend on. In contrast, children typically do not have this ability,
unless they have the support of adults to represent their interests.
This directly affects the political process, where a majority of
Democratic lawmakers oppose budget cuts on programs such as Social
Security or Supplemental Security Income. This does not mean that
children’s issues have been necessarily undervalued, they just do not
have as much of a presence in government compared to issues that
affect older Americans. In addition, older Americans have the legal
capacity to vote for politicians who represent their goals, while
children do not. This illustrates why no single piece of legislation
has yet to exist that defines child abuse and neglect (DiNitto &
Johnson, 2016).


DiNitto, D.M., & Johnson, D.H. (2016). Social Welfare: Politics and
Public Policy. (pp.

369-416). Austin, TX: Pearson Education, Inc.

Post 4 James wrote this:

Children and elder are much alike in terms of government intervention.
Much of what makes elders and children similar stems from the fact
that both populations may lack the same degree of independence as
many. Children and elders both have there own forms of welfare safety
nets. Futhermore, Children and the elderly also have specific
protections against abuse. In short, what makes children and the
elderly similar is the fact that both are marginalized populations to
differing degrees.

While children and elderly people share a similar interventional
structure, the elderly have receive much more attention. This is a
result of the power that the elderly are capable of holding as adult
citizens more specifically as lobbying groups. Children are unable to
form coalitions to see the reforms or attention they would like. In
contrast there are troves of elders in different groups like American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP) or the National Active and
Retired Federal Employee Association (NARFE) that can come together to
lobby for reforms. Children are unaware, incapable, and hold fewer
rights than do the elderly keeping them from being able to picket
schools to allow the chewing gum that they so badly need during school
hours. In contrast, elderly citizens are fully aware of there civic
duty and many have a lot of time to seek reform.

What would you replied to these classmates bout their post

Studypool has helped 1,244,100 students
flag Report DMCA
Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University

1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology

2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University

982 Tutors

Columbia University

1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University

2113 Tutors

Emory University

2279 Tutors

Harvard University

599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

2319 Tutors

New York University

1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University

1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University

2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University

932 Tutors

Princeton University

1211 Tutors

Stanford University

983 Tutors

University of California

1282 Tutors

Oxford University

123 Tutors

Yale University

2325 Tutors