Instructions This is the Liebeck v. Mcdonald's Discussion for Week 6. Please read the article about the Liebeck v. Mcdonald's case that I have posted in the Week 6 Module. The Liebeck case is a products liability case that was filed in U.S. District Court (federal court) in New Mexico. The case reached a verdict in trial court, was appealed by both sides, and then the case settled before the appeals court gave its decision. This discussion will take the place of our regular in-class Wednesday discussion. By participating in this discussion, you will earn points toward your participation grade. To earn five (5) participation points, please post at least once AND reply to/comment on at least one classmate's post. You are also very welcome to ask questions. This online discussion will be open for posting/responses until Sunday, October 8, 2023, at 11:59 pm. The discussion will close at that time, so please make sure to submit your posts and responses by the deadline. Please remember to be respectful and considerate of your classmates and their opinions and ideas. The legal environment is bound to touch on areas that some might find sensitive or controversial, and a respectful discourse is essential to a positive learning environment. Please make sure that all material posted is appropriate for the classroom and business environment. Grading This is a graded discussion and is worth five (5) participation points. This discussion is about engaging with your classmates and practicing analyzing a case. I am looking for you to make substantive posts/comments/replies, including references to the Liebeck case/article and the concepts and ideas from the reading and slides. I am looking for at least one post AND a reply to/comment on at least one classmate's post. Discussion Questions Do you think the Mcdonald's coffee was a defective product? Why or why not? Do you think the jury's verdict for Ms. Liebeck in the amount of $2.9 million ($200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages) was fair? What do you think about the judge's reduction of the punitive damages; was that fair