The reason our legal system is fucked up is because lawyers need to validate their paycheck and keep the layman from being able to represent themselves, this is Friedman 101. Your crying is hilariously misplaced and it was on Pepsi to make it an unattainable goal or pay up.
He's not really making much sense. In the replies above he appears to be anti-libertarian and saying people shouldn't be able to buy whatever they want - lawfare should be applied to dictate proper company policies. Here he's saying don't sue corporations.
From a legal perspective the Pepsi Harrier didn't tread any new ground.
But it was sensationalized and landed at a time when McDonalds had just been hammered for their Monopoly game being rigged, so the popular sentiment was that companies were more full of shit than normal.
It's more lasting impact was that companies moved to a "codes under caps" gimmick, where you could get things like music downloads (as mp3's became a thing).
Medical bills and that they lowered serving temperature to below molten lava. McDonald's was fully at fault and used the media as a weapon. Just shows that journalists were disgusting rats from the start.
This is blatantly ignorant, the average serving temperature across all restaurants at the time were based on consumer demand which was far higher than the “recommended” temp, anyone who worked any restaurant at the time would tell you the same. The case was a forward of legislation from the bench to anyone that paid the slightest bit of attention. Granny spilled on herself driving off with no cup holder in her car, it was blatantly stupid of her, end of story.
Yes, yes it does. If someone wants 180 or 210 degree coffee they should be able to purchase it. Your stupidity does not dictate my capacity as a consumer. I’m assuming you’re a communist?
You’re really this dumb or just being obtuse? No one “forces down” really hot coffee, you sip it, if you choose to “force it down” that’s on you. I should not be limited by the stupidity of others.
I really don't get the authoritarian bent here, but maybe it's all the collectivists/socialists frequenting this place. Or maybe they simply agree with the McDonalds ruling. This isn't like when Libertarians argue for legalizing all drugs. There's no societal knock-on effects if someone wants to buy dangerous food or personal items. Per the law of survival of the fittest, it might actually make society safer if we let stupid people Darwin themselves more often.
You could argue that McDs should have paid her medical bills and put up warning stickers though. Truth in advertising is important, and not all consumers want or expect the same temperature coffee.
The authoritarian bent... that if a business describes itself as a restaurant its products should be fit for human consumption? The woman did not ask for coffee that was too hot to drink. Nobody did; McDonald's own research showed that their drive-through customers wanted to be able to start drinking their coffee immediately.
Permitting a corporation to weasel out of an offer by claiming “we weren’t serious” is clearly a Pandora’s box. What other untenable offers will they be permitted to rescind using this rationale?
I haven't watched the show, but reading the Wikipedia article the ad presented an obviously absurd scenario that the plaintiff tried to have enforced as a binding offer. If Leonard claimed to legitimately believe that the offer was genuine, he is a liar.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Those stupid wins because the pool didn't have a warning that water is wet should be overruled ex post facto and the whiners sent to debtor's prison if they can't repay their wrongful gains.
The reason our legal system is fucked up is because lawyers need to validate their paycheck and keep the layman from being able to represent themselves, this is Friedman 101. Your crying is hilariously misplaced and it was on Pepsi to make it an unattainable goal or pay up.
Lol, no argument because you’re a sad leftist, how adorable
Nows my chance!
Haha, I got the last word jokes on both of you.
And it’s only wrong when the little guy does it lol
Corporations are currently ramming the rainbow dick down everyone’s throat and you’re still defending them.
Libertarianism is a special kind of retarded.
He's not really making much sense. In the replies above he appears to be anti-libertarian and saying people shouldn't be able to buy whatever they want - lawfare should be applied to dictate proper company policies. Here he's saying don't sue corporations.
From a legal perspective the Pepsi Harrier didn't tread any new ground.
But it was sensationalized and landed at a time when McDonalds had just been hammered for their Monopoly game being rigged, so the popular sentiment was that companies were more full of shit than normal.
It's more lasting impact was that companies moved to a "codes under caps" gimmick, where you could get things like music downloads (as mp3's became a thing).
Medical bills and that they lowered serving temperature to below molten lava. McDonald's was fully at fault and used the media as a weapon. Just shows that journalists were disgusting rats from the start.
This is blatantly ignorant, the average serving temperature across all restaurants at the time were based on consumer demand which was far higher than the “recommended” temp, anyone who worked any restaurant at the time would tell you the same. The case was a forward of legislation from the bench to anyone that paid the slightest bit of attention. Granny spilled on herself driving off with no cup holder in her car, it was blatantly stupid of her, end of story.
Yes, yes it does. If someone wants 180 or 210 degree coffee they should be able to purchase it. Your stupidity does not dictate my capacity as a consumer. I’m assuming you’re a communist?
<Walks into Subway> I demand my bread to be half mold!
<Walks into McDonalds> I insist my patty be left out at room temp for 24 hours!
Right. Even if she hadn't spilled it, a restaurant should not be selling coffee that would kill you if you drank it.
Except it wouldn’t, it didn’t, and consumers demanded it. Do you need rubber padding for sharp corners?
The lady was trying to pay for skin grafts. I assume it would have burned her insides at least as bad if she had managed to force it down her throat.
You’re really this dumb or just being obtuse? No one “forces down” really hot coffee, you sip it, if you choose to “force it down” that’s on you. I should not be limited by the stupidity of others.
I really don't get the authoritarian bent here, but maybe it's all the collectivists/socialists frequenting this place. Or maybe they simply agree with the McDonalds ruling. This isn't like when Libertarians argue for legalizing all drugs. There's no societal knock-on effects if someone wants to buy dangerous food or personal items. Per the law of survival of the fittest, it might actually make society safer if we let stupid people Darwin themselves more often.
You could argue that McDs should have paid her medical bills and put up warning stickers though. Truth in advertising is important, and not all consumers want or expect the same temperature coffee.
The authoritarian bent... that if a business describes itself as a restaurant its products should be fit for human consumption? The woman did not ask for coffee that was too hot to drink. Nobody did; McDonald's own research showed that their drive-through customers wanted to be able to start drinking their coffee immediately.
Permitting a corporation to weasel out of an offer by claiming “we weren’t serious” is clearly a Pandora’s box. What other untenable offers will they be permitted to rescind using this rationale?
I haven't watched the show, but reading the Wikipedia article the ad presented an obviously absurd scenario that the plaintiff tried to have enforced as a binding offer. If Leonard claimed to legitimately believe that the offer was genuine, he is a liar.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Those stupid wins because the pool didn't have a warning that water is wet should be overruled ex post facto and the whiners sent to debtor's prison if they can't repay their wrongful gains.
"I want my elephant!" - Bart Simpson