U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-28-2016, 10:29 AM
 
6,091 posts, read 2,836,633 times
Reputation: 6011

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
So individually each item, although costing less when purchased separately isn't a value. How could it be since McDonalds isn't advertising that they are a value "item". But bundled together at a higher price is a value?
That McDonald's is silent on whether the individual items are a "value" or not is irrelevant. It means nothing in the context of what is being discussed.

Quote:
Value - a measure of the benefit that may be gained from goods or service.
That's one definition. But let's be intellectually honest and provide some of the other definitions of the word, even if they don't help to support your position. From Merriam-Webster:

Quote:
Definition of value
  1. a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged
  2. the monetary worth of something : market price
  3. relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>
Too many people look at #2 above and fixate on it as the only definition possible, but then further ascribe to that definition that it MUST be vis-a-vis separately priced menu items. Unfortunately, that definition has no such requirement. The value of the "Extra Value Meal" is simply it's market price.

#1 and #3 above are much more fitting for the situation in question.

 
Old 12-28-2016, 10:37 AM
 
6,091 posts, read 2,836,633 times
Reputation: 6011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermobile View Post
There's the Big Mac you see in the advertising. There's the Big Mac you get when you order one regular price. And there is the two down-sized 'Big"? Macs you get for the "two (2) for" specials which is the same as the value meal Big Mac.
I think that most people understand that actual food items received rarely appear exactly the same as those food items in advertisements. However, are you suggesting that McDonald's makes different Big Macs for an a la carte purchase, and a meal purchase? Do you have any evidence of that? Not saying you're wrong, as I don't know, but I am curious.
 
Old 12-28-2016, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Elysium
6,608 posts, read 3,656,988 times
Reputation: 4597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
I don't see it that way. By stating/advertising it's a extra value meal its expected or implied that it's a better monetary value than buying the same items a la carte. Sort of like 2 for $3 it's understood it's two items for $3. Either way I don't go to Mc Donald's or most fast foods. I enjoy a In and Out burger or. Sandwich from a sandwich shop. But McDonads isn't my type of food on a regular basis.

The reason it's really done is because people are too lazy to add up prices.

It would be like a tax guy filling out 5 required tax form separately for $10 each then telling you I can do them all for a "value" price but it's gonna be $60.
Or at the price point of a happy meal don't care just as they ignore coins on the street. All they see is less than $5 for a meal or less than $1 for an item. Now if the customer took the time to read out each ingredient in his meal and the cashier hit the combo button instead giving the franchise the extra money yes I can see a small claim as a warning
 
Old 12-28-2016, 03:14 PM
 
10,720 posts, read 17,470,297 times
Reputation: 9920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy View Post
Just because there are frivolous lawsuits like this one doesn't mean that the entire system is bad.

Suggestions like making people have to pay up front means that the poor have less access to legal recourse.

Also, the contingency basis is to allow the lawfirm to be rewarded for taking a case that may not be a certain win.

Let's face it, you can have things happen where the other person is 100% at fault but still not win in court due to the available amount of proof.

For every story like the one in the OP, I can give you many examples of reasonable lawsuits. Heck, litigation like this is one of the few ways that people can keep companies honest because otherwise you have to rely on the government to keep them honest and decide if they want to prosecute them...and I don't think I have to explain how vulnerable to corruption and other influences that can be.

P.S. Michigan water crisis anyone?

No, because if a case has merit and there is monetary gain, attorneys will put up money for the client. Attorneys do this all the time. They won't do this in frivolous cases in which the plaintiff will likely lose. So it doesn't limit access to the poor. It only limits access to greedy people who file frivolous cases.

Lawyers shouldn't have to ask for money on a contingency basis. If the case is unlikely to win due to a lack of evidence then they shouldn't take the case. This will also discourage attorneys from trying to profit from frivolous cases.

The system is broke because there is no penalty to file a frivolous case. And in most cases, the company settles out of court to avoid paying a lot of money for a lengthy trial. It is cheaper to settle than go to trial so companies make a business decision. They admit no fault and settle. This is just a form of extortion.
 
Old 12-28-2016, 03:42 PM
 
9,231 posts, read 9,300,397 times
Reputation: 28940
Quote:
Originally Posted by azriverfan. View Post
No, because if a case has merit and there is monetary gain, attorneys will put up money for the client. Attorneys do this all the time. They won't do this in frivolous cases in which the plaintiff will likely lose. So it doesn't limit access to the poor. It only limits access to greedy people who file frivolous cases.

Lawyers shouldn't have to ask for money on a contingency basis. If the case is unlikely to win due to a lack of evidence then they shouldn't take the case. This will also discourage attorneys from trying to profit from frivolous cases.

The system is broke because there is no penalty to file a frivolous case. And in most cases, the company settles out of court to avoid paying a lot of money for a lengthy trial. It is cheaper to settle than go to trial so companies make a business decision. They admit no fault and settle. This is just a form of extortion.

Most people don't have thousands of dollars in their possession to pay a lawyer to represent them. Most people have a budget that allows them to pay for housing, food, transportation, insurance, and some miscellaneous needs.

Would you really ask the client I just finished representing who had three surgeries and badly broken leg because of an auto pedestrian accident that was not her fault to put up money up front to pay a lawyer? If your answer is yes, you have no idea how most people in this world live. However, it also contradicts the first paragraph you wrote where you say "If the case has merit, attorneys will put up money for the client".

I'm not sure understand the distinction between a "frivolous case" and one that is lost during trial. A frivolous case would be defined as one which has no basis under either the facts or the law. Many cases which have both a basis under the facts and the law are lost during a trial because the judge or jury disagreed whether evidence that supported the plaintiff outweighed evidence that supported the defendant. In any event, a frivolous case is something more than a case which is lost during trial.

While we are talking about extortion, some might argue that refusal to treat an ill patient who has no health insurance is extortion too. Care to comment on that?
 
Old 12-28-2016, 06:19 PM
 
18,479 posts, read 20,263,740 times
Reputation: 27072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
Or at the price point of a happy meal don't care just as they ignore coins on the street. All they see is less than $5 for a meal or less than $1 for an item. Now if the customer took the time to read out each ingredient in his meal and the cashier hit the combo button instead giving the franchise the extra money yes I can see a small claim as a warning
What is unfair is that to perceived as a cheaper option by most consumers because of buzz words such as EXTRA or VALUE.
Those types of words imply/assume if you buy this option it's cheaper. And most people don't look. They just blindly trust it to be so. Its like listening to the salesman and believing everything he says.
My McD ordering experience is a cup of coffee and maybe a egg mcmuffin. Once in a while my wife wants a big Mack meal. And that's rare. I usually wolf down a bagel and cream cheese from home while driving.
I don't much like the taste of McD food
 
Old 12-29-2016, 05:12 AM
 
15,789 posts, read 9,543,869 times
Reputation: 68359
Some posters need to reread the TOS about consumer complaints please. Closed for cleanup
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:15 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top