Corporations to get legal right to flat-out lie w/o penalty

Post by **Edi** » 2003-01-21 06:06am

Sorry if this has been posted before, but take a good look at this article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm

That's an important issue if ever there was one, and I think most everyone here is tired of constantly being shafted by big corporations. Now they want the right to lie in their advertisements and product promotions without any consequences at all. They should NOT get it.

Edi

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-21 06:10am

It's outrageous. As a law student, I can safely say that the law is most comfortable in dealing with 'loss' when there are real finanical interests involved- when a corporation lies to the public in advertising it is called for what it is: FRAUD, plain and simple. They will get smacked down hard.

Fucking frivolous ridiculous litigant mad assholes over there ...

Post by **Edi** » 2003-01-21 07:14am

Yeah, don't I know that! I tried to get into the law faculty at the Helsinki uni three times, but failed. Picked up a solid understanding of the basics doing it, though, so I understand the issue pretty well. That's why I was outraged enough (besides the other obvious reasons) to post the link.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-01-21 11:51am

Cool quote from the article:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. The best blood of the flower of American youth has been freely offered upon our country's altar that the nation might live. It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.

As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-01-21 12:13pm

Vympel wrote:It's outrageous. As a law student, I can safely say that the law is most comfortable in dealing with 'loss' when there are real finanical interests involved- when a corporation lies to the public in advertising it is called for what it is: FRAUD, plain and simple. They will get smacked down hard.

Fucking frivolous ridiculous litigant mad assholes over there ...

Pretty much my feelings on it. Too many ridiculous litigation manages to happen over here. Both Corps. and common greedy fuckers do it and it all leads us to here. Fraud is fraud weather you want a billion duckets for "spilling" a cup of hot ass coffee on your lap or your a company trying to get out of cleaning up their own messes.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-21 02:20pm

Knife wrote:
Vympel wrote:It's outrageous. As a law student, I can safely say that the law is most comfortable in dealing with 'loss' when there are real finanical interests involved- when a corporation lies to the public in advertising it is called for what it is: FRAUD, plain and simple. They will get smacked down hard.

Fucking frivolous ridiculous litigant mad assholes over there ...
Pretty much my feelings on it. Too many ridiculous litigation manages to happen over here. Both Corps. and common greedy fuckers do it and it all leads us to here. Fraud is fraud weather you want a billion duckets for "spilling" a cup of hot ass coffee on your lap or your a company trying to get out of cleaning up their own messes.

The McDonald's coffee case is probably the most misunderstood and misreported case in the history of American law.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-01-21 02:27pm

Mc Donalds + Coffe Spilling = Loads of cash in court.

Granted I know nothing about that case, but I am still at a loss how the hell MCD could lose!?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-21 02:38pm

Faram wrote:Mc Donalds + Coffe Spilling = Loads of cash in court.

Granted I know nothing about that case, but I am still at a loss how the hell MCD could lose!?

Lots of reasons; McDonald's had been getting complaints for years about the temperature of its coffee (almost 30-40 degrees higher than what you would get elsewhere), McDonald's had consistently refused to correct this problem, and McDonald's did not warn its customers of the risk associated the coffee. Coffee served at such high temperatures causes third degree burns very quickly.

Furthermore, the woman was not some money-grubbing opportunist; she had offered to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 dollars, a perfectly reasonable sum concerning the extent of her injuries, but McDonald's declined. And the court did not just hand her millions of dollars and hold her completely unaccountable; her compensatory damages were slashed 20 percent since she was held partially responsible for the accident (since, indeed, it was partially her fault), and the judge slashed her punitive damages to around a half million, where the jury had initally awarded her something like three million.

I've always held an interest in this case and hate to see it abused and misreported like it so constantly is.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-01-21 02:46pm

Durran Korr wrote:McDonald's had been getting complaints for years about the temperature of its coffee (almost 30-40 degrees higher than what you would get elsewhere),

Okay got the reasons and stuff.. Plain silly you can feel the temperature of a liquid throgh the container.

Btw I used to work with coffe(DO NOT ASK!)

Here in Sweden the recomended brewing temperature is ~94C (close to boiling), and it is served right after it is poured.

I guess all the bad things I have heard about american coffe is true if the common serving temperature is 30-40degrees lower (C or F?).

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-21 02:53pm

Faram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:McDonald's had been getting complaints for years about the temperature of its coffee (almost 30-40 degrees higher than what you would get elsewhere),
Okay got the reasons and stuff.. Plain silly you can feel the temperature of a liquid throgh the container.

Btw I used to work with coffe(DO NOT ASK!)

Here in Sweden the recomended brewing temperature is ~94C (close to boiling), and it is served right after it is poured.

I guess all the bad things I have heard about american coffe is true if the common serving temperature is 30-40degrees lower (C or F?).

94 degrees celsius? Good lord, that's almost 200 degrees fahrenheit, 10 degrees higher than the coffee served in the above McDonald's case. Your skin would probably be permanently scarred after less than two seconds of contact with the coffee.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-01-21 02:56pm

Durran Korr wrote:94 degrees celsius? Good lord, that's almost 200 degrees fahrenheit, 10 degrees higher than the coffee served in the above McDonald's case. Your skin would probably be permanently scarred after less than two seconds of contact with the coffee.

Ehh sorry a bit unclear there...

The Brewing temperature is high...

But it cools down really fast while dripping down into the pot.

Serving temp is something like 60-70 C

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-01-21 03:00pm

Faram wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:94 degrees celsius? Good lord, that's almost 200 degrees fahrenheit, 10 degrees higher than the coffee served in the above McDonald's case. Your skin would probably be permanently scarred after less than two seconds of contact with the coffee.
Ehh sorry a bit unclear there...

The Brewing temperature is high...

But it cools down really fast while dripping down into the pot.

Serving temp is something like 60-70 C

Ah, I see. That's actually pretty close to what American coffee is served at (130-150 degrees Fahrenheit).

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-01-21 03:11pm

Well, back to the topic at hand, the 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but I believe the founding fathers had in mind freedom to express one's opinion, not known factual lies.
If someone said that Adidas shoes suck, that is their opinion, and Adidas couldn't legally do jack shit about it. If that person claims, knowing fully to the contrairy, that Adidas shoes are made in sweatshops, and we'll assume they aren't, and Adidas loses sales over it, then Adidas then can sue for slander and/or libel. You would think that this should go both ways; the consumer should be able to sue Nike if they are delibertily lied to.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-01-21 03:39pm

If you don't want to quote the McDonalds case how about switching to the Alabama smoker who started smoking in 1974 and got Lung Cancer, and Recived.....

14 Billion Dollers
He BTW had never made more than 14$ an hour in his life, Lived in his car and after the Judge slashed the amount down he STILL HAD 400 MILLION DOLLERS FOR STARTING SMOKING TWENTY YEARS AFTER THEY HAD LABLES ON CIGRETTES!
Case is currently on appell but the fact that Jurys can hand out 14 Billion Doller Punisments....(IMO Fedural Law has a cap on how much a Judge can slash resitutions)

But anyway this fucker nearly jumped into Forbes 100 Richest Americans list thanks to this shit....(Number 100 Last year had around 59 Million or so last Year meaning he would be farily far up the list)

Post by **Edi** » 2003-01-22 01:44am

Wicked Pilot wrote:Well, back to the topic at hand, the 1st Amendment does protect freedom of speech, but I believe the founding fathers had in mind freedom to express one's opinion, not known factual lies.

Exactly!

There's also the little point about freedom of speech and the other rights granted in the constitution applying to persons, people in general (for the most part) and citizens of the US in particular (some rights such as voting). A corporation is not a person in the sense meant by the constitution, it is a legal construct that exists on paper as opposed to you or me. Therefore the corporation as such can only have any of these rights only to a limited degree and some not at all (e.g. voting). Moreover, even if real people have the 1st amendment rights of free expression, they are still not allowed to defraud other people of their money by lies, so neither can corporations, they are definitely not above the law, yet this is exactly what they are asking.

Mr. Bean wrote:If you don't want to quote the McDonalds case how about switching to the Alabama smoker who started smoking in 1974 and got Lung Cancer, and Recived.....

14 Billion Dollers
He BTW had never made more than 14$ an hour in his life, Lived in his car and after the Judge slashed the amount down he STILL HAD 400 MILLION DOLLERS FOR STARTING SMOKING TWENTY YEARS AFTER THEY HAD LABLES ON CIGRETTES!
Case is currently on appell but the fact that Jurys can hand out 14 Billion Doller Punisments....(IMO Fedural Law has a cap on how much a Judge can slash resitutions)

But anyway this fucker nearly jumped into Forbes 100 Richest Americans list thanks to this shit....(Number 100 Last year had around 59 Million or so last Year meaning he would be farily far up the list)

Ridiculous, yes, but so is the whole damned punitive damages system as it now stands. It needs a serious overhaul and a cap put on place how much a private person should receive in damages, which should be no more than the actual harm suffered (e.g. medical costs, replacement of damaged goods, yearly allotment of money in case of permanent injury that prevents working etc., plus maybe a modest reparation above the damages), that would cut down on frivolous lawsuits a great deal. At the same time, you can't do away with the punitive damages system completely or the big companies will just pay a pittance (to them) and continue with business as usual. So what is needed is to keep the amounts the same, but anything above the actual damages plus the modest reparation should go to the state.

That would also encourage the state to actively monitor the corporations and step on them hard when they cross the line, and ít would also encourage the corporations to clean up their act and be up front about what they do because the alternative would hurt, and with this system, their opponent in the courtroom has both the will and the means to take them on in pursuit of justice.

Of course, none of this will happen because of the influence of lawyer lobbies and the incestuous campaign finance system that guarantees that special interest groups in effect control legislation, and they are very rarely flying the flag of the common people.

Edi

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-01-22 04:27am

I read the other day about a woman in texas who sued a store and got the equivalent of £520k for breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler that was running wild in the store.....

...the toddler was her son.