|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 6, 2016 1:37:25 GMT
And if you're so mentally fragile that something like that causes you distress so severe that you can't possibly go on living without fleecing someone for $122,000 over some $1 fried cheese sticks, then maybe you shouldn't be allowed to leave your house without supervision... Look, I agree that there are laws that need to be met when selling food, that those laws are there for a reason, that the people who are supposed to uphold them aren't always the quickest horses on the farm and that a company that doesn't deliver what's promised needs to be held accountable, but there are other, more reasonable ways of achieving that than demanding an insane amount of money for a relatively minor offense. As I said, start by complaining at the restaurant. If that doesn't work, take it up with the main office. If all those 41 people had the same bad experience at the same McNope's, I can assure you it'll be dealt with swiftly. If it's not at the same restaurant, but a general problem, it will probably also be dealt with, but it might take a little more time. If none of that works, take to trashing the chain by word of mouth and on social media and get your friends in on it. If enough people stop buying the product, it'll either be removed from the menu, or the problem will be fixed. If word of mouth and social media doesn't work either, you still have the option of going to the established media. Nothing is as sure to get big chains like these back on track as bad publicity. Those are your options BEFORE suing, but personally, I'd still just stop going to that restaurant and keep trashing them whenever the chance presents itself. Unless I've been physically hurt (or at least been at risk of injury), I can't see myself suing anyone over some cheese sticks. It just seems too petty and ridiculous for me to even think that way. It's the american way. Your words, not mine
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 6, 2016 2:37:21 GMT
Your words, not mine and you wonder why so many Americans visiting Europe claim to be Canadian.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 6, 2016 7:30:55 GMT
Your words, not mine and you wonder why so many Americans visiting Europe claim to be Canadian. I would say "Only the intelligent ones", but...... Again, let me make it clear, I do not support the lawsuit "As is", I support the complaint that it needs investigating as to exactly what is being sold and why, but this is the Weird lawsuit thread, its not supposed to be sensible, so, come on Bert, you Gouda admit, its time to cheese the thread.
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Feb 8, 2016 10:05:02 GMT
1funny.com/top-10-stupid-lawsuits/These I believe are the sort of cases we need... and we will see them...... I am sure.... I dont need to bet on that, I just know they will arrive. Turned gay from a 'rear-end collision' that is quite hilarious, what lacks hilarity is that he actually won the case. I fully mean exactly what i say when I say his lawyer, the prosecutor, and the judge on this case should be taken out back and promptly shot in the cranium, repeatedly.
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Feb 8, 2016 10:26:01 GMT
If that does turn into a lawsuit - and I believe it should - I don't really see how it fits into this thread as "weird". If anything is weird about this, it's how the tow company could possibly think they could get away with a bill like that! I hope they're charged with fraud! I hope the whole community decides they are a pack of total incompetents and never calls them again. I do agree the Jeep is a total loss, though. seriously - here's your comparison: View Attachmentthis was 20 feet down an embankment through a swamp and hit a major power line structure. it was about a 10 minute one-(small)-truck winch-out. I was thinking the same thing, 12 hours to get a vehicle hooked up and pulled out? I wonder if somewhere on the itemized bill if it says how much alcohol they were charging the Jeep owner for
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Feb 8, 2016 10:50:38 GMT
It's not Only to compensate for the cost of the sticks themselves but for the emotional distress caused by the lack of cheese. Yeah right..... If lack of cheese causes so immense emotional distress for these people, then in case they win, would it be too bold of the judge to place a clause on the payout that limits the use of the money to payment for psychiatric help? Should they win the lawsuit, the judge should perhaps see to it that instead of cash, they receive the entire award in Mozzarella cheese.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 8, 2016 12:21:03 GMT
If lack of cheese causes so immense emotional distress for these people, then in case they win, would it be too bold of the judge to place a clause on the payout that limits the use of the money to payment for psychiatric help? Should they win the lawsuit, the judge should perhaps see to it that instead of cash, they receive the entire award in Mozzarella cheese. Good point. Lack of cheese was after all what they were suing for to begin with The judge just needs to make sure they don't get it all at once, but can pick it up somewhere any time they want some. Otherwise, they'll just sue the judge for the cheese going bad before they can eat it all and once again not getting what they were expecting.
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Feb 8, 2016 12:38:16 GMT
Your words, not mine and you wonder why so many Americans visiting Europe claim to be Canadian. According to the Canadians, most US citizens don't know what a Canada is...
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on May 20, 2016 13:15:13 GMT
There are several things wrong with this... EDIT: Here's the link if you want to read it from the site, although I copied the whole story below. 1) WTF Target?!?!?! 2) I hate how the story, after starting off about the asinine lawsuit, then goes into the gender bathrooms, as if it's relevant to the rest of the story in any way. 3) I feel that people boycott too frequently and for petty reasons... however, I would be hard pressed to ever shop Target again after their actions against someone who saved a life. UPDATE: One of the links inside the article tells a slightly different version of the story. It explains what happened a little differently.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 20, 2016 15:07:13 GMT
There are several things wrong with this... EDIT: Here's the link if you want to read it from the site, although I copied the whole story below. 1) WTF Target?!?!?! 2) I hate how the story, after starting off about the asinine lawsuit, then goes into the gender bathrooms, as if it's relevant to the rest of the story in any way. 3) I feel that people boycott too frequently and for petty reasons... however, I would be hard pressed to ever shop Target again after their actions against someone who saved a life. UPDATE: One of the links inside the article tells a slightly different version of the story. It explains what happened a little differently. let me be sure I understand this: Meadows is the person who was stabbed, and Target is also suing HER? it sounds suspiciously to me like Target is trying to dodge liability for the attack.
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on May 20, 2016 15:10:20 GMT
I believe that's a typo by the article and should probably read Turner. Although that's just a guess
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 20, 2016 15:12:51 GMT
I believe that's a typo by the article and should probably read Turner. Although that's just a guess if they are arguing that by chasing the stabber, he caused unnecessary risk when he could have just protected the victim without chasing the stabber; then that is at least an arguable position. it is a bit apparent to me the writer is biased against Target.
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on May 20, 2016 18:01:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on May 20, 2016 18:56:18 GMT
Makes a lot more sense. Still, the only person who is at fault here, is the homeless guy who did the stabbing. No one else, nor Target as an entity, is at fault for what happened. And them suing Turner, is ludicrous IMO
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 20, 2016 23:59:56 GMT
so, basically, Target is suing them for not doing a good enough job of beating him up in the original attack.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 21, 2016 0:53:36 GMT
so, basically, Target is suing them for not doing a good enough job of beating him up in the original attack. Maybe because he didn't pay for the baseball bat on the way out.
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Apr 6, 2017 0:07:08 GMT
Man sues Dunkin' Donuts over margarine on bagels"Jan Polanik had sued a cluster of franchises of the Canton, Massachusetts-based doughnut and coffeehouse chain, saying he received margarine on his bagels when he requested real butter. The Boston Globe reports that the settlement filed in Suffolk Superior Court could mean $500 for Polanik, three free buttered baked goods for 1,400 other customers and $90,000 for Polanik's attorney." Knew I should have become an attorney.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 6, 2017 3:40:50 GMT
Man sues Dunkin' Donuts over margarine on bagels"Jan Polanik had sued a cluster of franchises of the Canton, Massachusetts-based doughnut and coffeehouse chain, saying he received margarine on his bagels when he requested real butter. The Boston Globe reports that the settlement filed in Suffolk Superior Court could mean $500 for Polanik, three free buttered baked goods for 1,400 other customers and $90,000 for Polanik's attorney." Knew I should have become an attorney. would like to be the judge on that one. I'd be inclined to rule that the store has to replace the bagels with buttered ones, and the lawyer has to take his pay out of the settlement.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 6, 2017 7:10:13 GMT
Man sues Dunkin' Donuts over margarine on bagels"Jan Polanik had sued a cluster of franchises of the Canton, Massachusetts-based doughnut and coffeehouse chain, saying he received margarine on his bagels when he requested real butter. The Boston Globe reports that the settlement filed in Suffolk Superior Court could mean $500 for Polanik, three free buttered baked goods for 1,400 other customers and $90,000 for Polanik's attorney." Knew I should have become an attorney. would like to be the judge on that one. I'd be inclined to rule that the store has to replace the bagels with buttered ones, and the lawyer has to take his pay out of the settlement. I would like to see a law that states no legal lawyer payout should be worth more than the sum being claimed. I would also like to see a law that states that the legal profession should be forced to do low cost low rate law suits as part of their membership of "the bar" or whatever the legal name is for that club they all belong to. And do "So may" per month to retain their certificates.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 6, 2017 13:52:19 GMT
would like to be the judge on that one. I'd be inclined to rule that the store has to replace the bagels with buttered ones, and the lawyer has to take his pay out of the settlement. I would like to see a law that states no legal lawyer payout should be worth more than the sum being claimed. I would also like to see a law that states that the legal profession should be forced to do low cost low rate law suits as part of their membership of "the bar" or whatever the legal name is for that club they all belong to. And do "So may" per month to retain their certificates. well, the sum being claimed is $90,500 plus 4200 baked goods...
|
|