A home for the weary.
https://www.wwtbambored.com/
Unfortunately not. Too many lawyers do stuff like this because (not, "why not") they are a**holes. I know oneThe entire legal system, meanwhile, could not be reached for comment, because it was far too busy laughing hysterically.
http://lawnewz.com/video/lawyer-threate ... p-of-soup/Downing was interviewed by several local news outlets via telephone. In the interviews, he said the restaurant should prepare more soup or change its policy to either discount the cost of the meal or substitute an additional side. He also reiterated some of the same points he made in the demand letter, including his accusation that restaurant engages in deceptive trade practices.
“They need to quit having it on the menu or have enough for the whole day,” Downing told NBC 5. “To me, it’s a deceptive trade practice.”
Bait-and-switch? For a bowl of soup? You can't be serious!silverscreenselect wrote:Any restaurant I know of that advertises a meal that includes an appetizer or dessert or cup of soup as part of the meal would substitute or adjust the bill if they ran out. That's what reputable restaurants do. They don't advertise free soup as a bait-and-switch tactic.
Consider it an earlybird bonus. Stores are allowed to advertise "while supplies last" on Black Friday deals and other things. Why not restaurants. The restaurant is giving an incentive to peak demand at a certain time where they can be most efficient. If they give something else when soup runs out, especially if that something is preferable to certain folks, then those folks would be encouraged to always come later.silverscreenselect wrote:The idea in this case is not to get the $2.25 or the attorney's fees. It's to get the restaurant to stop engaging in deceptive practices of advertising a daily special when they don't have it and expecting people to pay the same amount for less food.
http://lawnewz.com/video/lawyer-threate ... p-of-soup/Downing was interviewed by several local news outlets via telephone. In the interviews, he said the restaurant should prepare more soup or change its policy to either discount the cost of the meal or substitute an additional side. He also reiterated some of the same points he made in the demand letter, including his accusation that restaurant engages in deceptive trade practices.
“They need to quit having it on the menu or have enough for the whole day,” Downing told NBC 5. “To me, it’s a deceptive trade practice.”
Any restaurant I know of that advertises a meal that includes an appetizer or dessert or cup of soup as part of the meal would substitute or adjust the bill if they ran out. That's what reputable restaurants do. They don't advertise free soup as a bait-and-switch tactic.
"While supplies last" is not a blank check for a company to put one item in a store and then claim they're out of it. Most Black Friday ads now state how many they have in the store, so if someone sees that they have 5 big screen TV's for $100, there's a pretty good chance those will sell out very quickly, while if they say they have 1,000 coffeemakers for $5, those will probably last a lot longer. Proving bait and switch is tough, but it might be possible.BackInTex wrote:
Consider it an earlybird bonus. Stores are allowed to advertise "while supplies last" on Black Friday deals and other things. Why not restaurants.
If you think they are including their soup in the advertised special and then going to all the trouble of making a single serving, then you're a bigger idiot than you've previously let on.silverscreenselect wrote:"While supplies last" is not a blank check for a company to put one item in a store and then claim they're out of it. Most Black Friday ads now state how many they have in the store, so if someone sees that they have 5 big screen TV's for $100, there's a pretty good chance those will sell out very quickly, while if they say they have 1,000 coffeemakers for $5, those will probably last a lot longer. Proving bait and switch is tough, but it might be possibleBackInTex wrote:Consider it an earlybird bonus. Stores are allowed to advertise "while supplies last" on Black Friday deals and other things. Why not restaurants.
I never said they only made a single serving. But if you believe that retailers don't advertise items knowing full well they don't have very many of them and that they instead intend to persuade customers to buy more expensive items once they're in the store than you're a bigger idiot than you've previously let on.Estonut wrote:If you think they are including their soup in the advertised special and then going to all the trouble of making a single serving, then you're a bigger idiot than you've previously let on.silverscreenselect wrote:"While supplies last" is not a blank check for a company to put one item in a store and then claim they're out of it. Most Black Friday ads now state how many they have in the store, so if someone sees that they have 5 big screen TV's for $100, there's a pretty good chance those will sell out very quickly, while if they say they have 1,000 coffeemakers for $5, those will probably last a lot longer. Proving bait and switch is tough, but it might be possibleBackInTex wrote:Consider it an earlybird bonus. Stores are allowed to advertise "while supplies last" on Black Friday deals and other things. Why not restaurants.
The attorney now says he would've handled it differently.
"Probably not. I would've been upset, but I probably wouldn't have written the letter," Downing said during an interview on Monday.
He says he no longer plans to sue, partly because of cyber bullying and threats that he says resulted from the exposure.
"I didn't put it on social media," Downing said. "I didn't intend for it to become this way. This place was rude, very rude. He put it on social media. Cyber bullies have threatened my life."
andrewjackson wrote:The lawyer has decided not to sue.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant- ... /153071762
The attorney now says he would've handled it differently.
"Probably not. I would've been upset, but I probably wouldn't have written the letter," Downing said during an interview on Monday.
He says he no longer plans to sue, partly because of cyber bullying and threats that he says resulted from the exposure.
"I didn't put it on social media," Downing said. "I didn't intend for it to become this way. This place was rude, very rude. He put it on social media. Cyber bullies have threatened my life."
Businesses are not all evil, because most of them don't engage in bait-and-switch tactics. But the reason that consumer protection laws exist in the first place is to help people get redress. And this lawyer was representing himself, not stirring up litigation on behalf of someone else.BackInTex wrote:SSS defending and taking the side of a lawyer suing over $2.25. His worldview (starting point) is quite evident, businesses, regardless how small, are evil and are only in business to screw their customers. Lawyers on the other hand, in his worldview (starting point), are all knights in shining armor fighting the good fight because the consumers, everyone but the lawyers, are too stupid or weak to handle daily life without the help of lawyers.
The lawyer's mistake (he's an older lawyer) was not taking his gripe to social media in the first place. Couch it the right way, play up the fact that they took his order and he drove halfway to the next town to get the special, and then the fact that that the employees were rude to him, and he would have gotten the public on his side. But he did what he was familiar with.tlynn78 wrote:andrewjackson wrote:The lawyer has decided not to sue.
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant- ... /153071762
The attorney now says he would've handled it differently.
"Probably not. I would've been upset, but I probably wouldn't have written the letter," Downing said during an interview on Monday.
He says he no longer plans to sue, partly because of cyber bullying and threats that he says resulted from the exposure.
"I didn't put it on social media," Downing said. "I didn't intend for it to become this way. This place was rude, very rude. He put it on social media. Cyber bullies have threatened my life."
"I was just going to be a gigantic d*head in private, but now that people know about it, I'll just slip back under this rock."
My thoughts exactly.tlynn78 wrote:
"I was just going to be a gigantic d*head in private, but now that people know about it, I'll just slip back under this rock."
silverscreenselect wrote:The lawyer's mistake (he's an older lawyer) was not taking his gripe to social media in the first place. Couch it the right way, play up the fact that they took his order and he drove halfway to the next town to get the special, and then the fact that that the employees were rude to him, and he would have gotten the public on his side. But he did what he was familiar with.
I can identify with this situation because a variation on that happened to me. I was on an assignment at a 30-story office building a few miles away and I decided to have lunch in the lobby cafeteria. They had a daily special, a particular sandwich, fries and a drink for $6.99. Below that on the sign, it said that 20-ounce sodas in bottles were available for an additional 75 cents. Unbeknownst to me, they actually had two size drinks (the cups weren't labeled small or large), so I got the large size and filled it from the drink dispenser. The cashier, who was the manager, charged me the additional 75 cents because I got the "large" drink. I said the special didn't specify that the large drink was extra; it only said the bottled drink was extra. I knew that restaurants have a different system for paying for bottled drinks and fountain drinks, so they get charged for each individual bottle, but fountain soda costs very little. He insisted I pay the extra 75 cents (even though we both walked over and looked at the special sign), so I just left the drink and the box with the sandwich and fries on the counter and told him he could keep them. About 30 seconds later, he ran after me with the box and the soda and gave me the meal for free.
PS: The sign didn't change the next day. I guess most people just went along with paying the extra 75 cents so as not to "cause trouble."
The problem was that the drink cups weren't labeled in any way and in fact were in different places near the soda fountain. And they were all similar appearing styrofoam cups. I grabbed one that was close to the soda dispenser. I was not trying to pull a lawyerly trick on him; I'm well aware that small and large drinks cost different amounts of money. But when they don't label them in any way and leave you to pick them out, they're inviting exactly that type of mistake.littlebeast13 wrote: I have never, in all of my years of eating out, ever seen a restaurant advertise a special/combo meal with a price that includes anything but whatever the smallest drink is they serve. You are trying to make them waste print on something that most restaurant goers would have assumed anyway... not everyone tries to think like a lawyer...
lb13
silverscreenselect wrote:
The problem was that the drink cups weren't labeled in any way and in fact were in different places near the soda fountain. And they were all similar appearing styrofoam cups. I grabbed one that was close to the soda dispenser. I was not trying to pull a lawyerly trick on him; I'm well aware that small and large drinks cost different amounts of money. But when they don't label them in any way and leave you to pick them out, they're inviting exactly that type of mistake.
And many fast food restaurants I go to offer kid's drinks, senior drinks, "value" drinks, or the like at a reduced price, but the combo meal includes the smallest "regular" size drink they have available.
and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.Pastor Fireball wrote:Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?
Just want to make sure I' m clear here. It's frivolous to sue McD's for serving potentially burning hot coffee at a drive-through, but not frivolous for cotton sweatpants manufacturers to not take into account that customers might spill nearly boiling water on themselves, and change to some other material that wouldn't hold the burning liquid close to the skin? (I can't find anything that said the pants melted.)triviawayne wrote:and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.Pastor Fireball wrote:Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?
The issue here is really with the manufacturer of her pants, which melted to her skin and caused her burns. Clothing should not be made to melt in such a way as that is a safety hazard which wouldn't be readily known to the consumer as hot coffee is known to be hot. She should've sued the maker of her pants.
Another case of lawyers doing their job, but judges being lazy and not doing theirs.
It was her skin that melted. I've seen the uncensored photo, it's horrific.mrkelley23 wrote:Just want to make sure I' m clear here. It's frivolous to sue McD's for serving potentially burning hot coffee at a drive-through, but not frivolous for cotton sweatpants manufacturers to not take into account that customers might spill nearly boiling water on themselves, and change to some other material that wouldn't hold the burning liquid close to the skin? (I can't find anything that said the pants melted.)triviawayne wrote:and that's another one the judge should've tossed out of the courtroom. That was not the fault of McD's, but because of a klutz who dropped her hot coffee in her own lap.Pastor Fireball wrote:Anybody remember the good old days when people would just sue over how hot McDonald's coffee was?
The issue here is really with the manufacturer of her pants, which melted to her skin and caused her burns. Clothing should not be made to melt in such a way as that is a safety hazard which wouldn't be readily known to the consumer as hot coffee is known to be hot. She should've sued the maker of her pants.
Another case of lawyers doing their job, but judges being lazy and not doing theirs.
As with most one-sentence headline stories, the facts of the hot coffee case made it to be not frivolous, although if I were a juror in the case, I doubt I would have voted for the woman to win, much less the amount of damages they gave. Everyone in that case, including the judge, did their job correctly under the law as it was written. But boy, did it make for some interesting blurbs. And today, with social media? That woman would never be able to show her face again.
