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.
But if the judge/jury heard all the evidence and decided in favor of the defendant, why should the defendant "be on the hook" for those thousands of dollars? Fact is, by the time it goes to trial big expenses have accrued and *somebody* has to pay them.
Your opposition actually illustrates why it should be "loser pays". You oppose it because it would make you assume the risk of suing unsuccessfully. Yet, since you/plaintiff are the one choosing to sue it certainly should be you/plaintiff that is assuming the risk. You would think twice about suing, and would be darn sure your case had merit rather than currently being able to take a risk-free pot shot.
The current system essentially allows legal blackmail, inducing deep-pockets defendants to settle because it would be cheaper than the costs of defending successfully since they will pay their legal costs even if they win. That's just wrong.
All I can say is that if loser-pay ever does become the law it will stop meritorious suits as well as frivolous ones.
That's the decision that John Q. Public has to make. It is worth taking away everyone's right to use the legal system to redress grievances because of a few abuses?
Personally, as a lawyer, I'm reaching an age where I could retire. Very soon, this whole debate will be academic for me. The people who will really pay the price are people like Mary Smith (a fictious name), but a real client. Her leg was badly broken when an automobile ran into her in a pedestrian crosswalk. She had $200,000 in medical bills, lost wages, inability to care for two young children, and permanent injuries as a result of this accident. You would think this would be cut and dried. Its not. The defendant contended even though she was in a pedestrian crosswalk that she was more at fault than he was because it was dark that morning and even with reflective clothing she wasn't doing enough to prevent the accident. If we had a loser-pay rule, she wouldn't have dared to file a lawsuit because there is the possibility she could lose with a bad jury or bad judge.
I think the wrongfulness of preventing such people from using the courts to redress their grievances is apparent. Only a society that was hellbent on protecting insurance companies and corporations would deprive ordinary people of this right.
Well there at least needs to be a middle ground where plaintiffs cannot name any and every possible defendant merely because they are deep pockets. What we need is better screening to keep frivolous claims (or defenses, as in your case) from getting far enough to incur steep expenses.
It would be deceptive advertising if the "Value" in value meal was explicitly stated as being "the price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." But that isn't what happened. McDonald's simply stated that the Meal was an "Extra Value." And since there is no objective measurement of what constitutes an "Extra Value," and that determination is to be made by each customer, the lawsuit is totally frivolous.
That is absolutely ridiculous. The word "extra" means exactly what you have said: "The price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." No other interpretation is possible.
That is absolutely ridiculous. The word "extra" means exactly what you have said: "The price of the items in the combo vs. the price of the items purchased separately is an Extra Value." No other interpretation is possible.
It means no such thing.
One of the nice things about a well-developed language such as English is that words have meaning. But the whole thing kind of falls apart when one decides for themself that words actually mean something else.
One of the nice things about a well-developed language such as English is that words have meaning. But the whole thing kind of falls apart when one decides for themself that words actually mean something else.
"Extra" is inherently comparative in nature, and the only thing to compare the "extra value meal" to would be the other meals that you could buy at the restaurant, i.e., meals purchased a la carte.
And "themself"! Hilarious!
Last edited by hbdwihdh378y9; 12-27-2016 at 12:10 AM..
Are you out of your mind? I notice that you didn't provide any other possible meaning, because there is none.
"Extra" is inherently comparative in nature, and the only thing to compare the "extra value meal" to would be the other meals that you could buy at the restaurant, i.e., meals purchased a la carte.
And "themself"! Hilarious!
Missed the edit in my previous post.
Another nice thing about well-developed languages is that they are able to evolve. It should be readily apparent that the English spoken today in the US is different from that spoken 200 years ago. It has evolved. If you are unaware of the accepted use of " themself" as a singular reflexive pronoun, perhaps you should get out more.
"The meal is an 'Extra Value' compared to similar meals in competing eateries."
Claiming that no alternative meanings are possible is simply not true.
Give me a break. It's implicit that everything a restaurant sells offers more value than whatever you can get elsewhere. And expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The claim that those specific combos (and only those specific combos) offer "extra value" compared to meals at competing eateries is not true.
If extra value doesn't refer to price then what does it refer to? Nutritional content?
RIF. From my post:
Note that I didn't say it's not about price. Note that they make no claim about it being a great price compared to something else, just that it is a good price and a good deal. It may be, or it may not be, but that is a determination for the customer to make.
They imply no such thing. They claim that it is an Extra Value, nothing else.
I guess that if you believe that math is for suckers, then you will believe he has a case.
The man filing the suit did the math, and it reveals false advertising, which is against the law.
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.
