In the $1970$s$,$ Ford motor company produced a compact car to compete with German and Japanese auto makers: the Ford Pinto. Ford strategy was to build a lightweight, inexpensive car. That would be fun to drive.but, Ford made some engineering compromises to quickly deliver the card to market and to fulfill it strategic objectives. One of the compromises was the position of the fuel tank. Ford knowingly delivered the Ford Pinto to American consumers with serious fire hazard that could occur with rear and collision at as little as $25$ mph$.$between $1971$ and $1979,$ manypeople were seriously hurt and burned due to ruptured fuel tanks in the Ford Pinto. In the same period, two cases, established, civil and criminal legal standards: Grimshaw versus Ford motors, and the state of Indiana versus the Ford motor company.summarize the facts of the two cases. What decision$-$making theory disgust in chapter $2$ of sharding texted for due to determine whether or not to repair the fiery pinto? What was the outcome of the Grimshaw case? What was the outcome of the state of Indiana case?Knowing what you know now about the ethics of business decision$-$making do you think Ford is still heartless, unethical, company, or$,$ did Ford executives make disastrous business decisions by not rigorously following the theory of cost benefit analysis?