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.
This is silly. A restaurant can price their items any way they want. Even if it doesn't make sense. I sometimes see cases where a "package" meal is more than the cost of the items a la carte but in that case I just order them a la carte or don't give them my business.
I would in fact agree that it is frequently a problem as to what people are "allowed" to use the legal system for.
For what it's worth, Illinois is supposed to be a very Liberal state, it is my understanding that not every State allows such nonsense to be acted upon.. For example. My Uncle tells me all the time how in Pennsylvania, there are limits to what you can sue for, how much, when, etc. Whereas in NJ you can just "sue and sue and sue..." He lives in NJ, near the PA border. That may be a little OT for this thread, but. I am hearing "entitlements."
It's a lot like those that use the legal system TO harass others.
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.
I would in fact agree that it is frequently a problem as to what people are "allowed" to use the legal system for.
For what it's worth, Illinois is supposed to be a very Liberal state, it is my understanding that not every State allows such nonsense to be acted upon.. For example. My Uncle tells me all the time how in Pennsylvania, there are limits to what you can sue for, how much, when, etc. Whereas in NJ you can just "sue and sue and sue..." He lives in NJ, near the PA border. That may be a little OT for this thread, but. I am hearing "entitlements."
It's a lot like those that use the legal system TO harass others.
First off, excellent post.
Each state can set laws that dictate a variety of things in the courts.
California for example has some strong tort caps.
NJ had to reform a bunch of their auto accident related laws because it had allowed lots of lawsuits that helped produce the highest insurance rates in the country. It was bad enough there were actually people out intentionally causing accidents. One man about 10 years ago pulled in from of a truck and jammed on his brakes looking for a few 100k for him and his gf....she wound up dead...he went to prison.
To complicate things further some states make it hard to sue or collect big for something like auto accidents but for something like suing a doctor it's open season....or the opposite.
It's really all over the place due to state regulation and of course...how easy it is to pack a jury that will hand out giant verdicts and side with your case just because you're suing a "big company".
At one point a number of years ago, Mississippi had something like half or more of the national class action law suits brought in the state despite having about 1% of the US population.
People have way too much time on their hands. Lawyers who take on these nonsense cases are shysters.looking to make a fast buck...unreal
It's not frivolous. It's deceptive advertising. And P L E N T Y of companies and corporations do it at the expense of consumers. If you bought that value meal every week for a year you gave them $21.32 additional money in their pocket. Now X that with 1 million sales. So a additional profit of .41 for every sale of that meal and advertising it as value meal when it's anything but. Advertizing a value is supposed to be a value. That means it should be cheaper than buying each item separately.
I'm wondering why a lawsuit. Did the guy even attempt to reach out to McDonalds and make them aware of the issue or was his first action to call a lawyer and then the media?
I hope that he does not 'win big' since he says it's about principles. I do hope he is successful in getting the company to make certain that franchise owners don't pull these sorts of deceptive stunts in the future.
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.
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.
