Posted by Derek Janssen on 01/13/62 11:40

HoMoon115 wrote:

>>>Except that in this society we are bombarded by statements that claim to
>>>deliver one thing yet we receive something else.
>
>
> I couldn't agree more. We agree on this point. We disagree on what
> standards to apply when determining which statements overstep the
> bounds of legality. Derek touches on a reasonable standard.
>
>
>>>time you drink it, and to which no patron has ever sued for false claims--
>>>Sort of like an "unlimited rental" of coffee.) :)
>
>
> No patron has sued b/c of the bottomless cup claim. I'm not a lawyer,
> but I've heard of a legal term called something like the "common sense
> principle". So if applied to this case, terms would be arguable
> deceptive if a majority would interpret the claim contrary to what is
> delivered. In questionable situations its up to the courts to laly
> judgement.
>
> In conjuction with Derek's statement, we arrive at a simple conclusion:

A bunch of fanboys decided to get together, find a cheap lawyer and
harrass the company for headline value, just like the
MGM-widescreen/cutoff nuts, and got pawned off with a coupon if they'd
get lost and get a hobby. :)

Derek Janssen (simplify, simplify)
ejanss@comcast.net

[Back to original message]