MGSteve
Well-known member
heh, off topic and all, but irony of irony, that was post 666 in this thread! lol
Current Litigation
- Thread starter JamesBrown
- Start date
ManagerJosh
Well-known member
SchmitzIT
Well-known member
When I was in college, I took some law classes as well, and the particular situation was explained to me as McD purposely overheating the coffee, because that way the coffee smells more. Basically, the overheating is done from a profit-mindset, in an attempt to sell more coffee.
The damages awarded to the woman in question were (IIRC) the total profit McD made in one year based on this overheating trick. And yes, purely because due to the increased temperature, there was a much higher risk to end up with severe burns.
In the case of your Ferrari example, imagine Ferrari adds some kind of extremely sharp edges to the car, making it look more slick and fast. They are warned it's dangerous, but will keep the edges there anyway, because it helps them sell more cars. And then someone loses an arm because of one of these edges...
Stuart Wright
Well-known member
I've been pouring Bolognese sauce down the toilet to appease the flying spaghetti monster, so hopefully all our invisible friends will be working overtime for us.
I've been pouring Bolognese sauce down the toilet to appease the flying spaghetti monster, so hopefully all our invisible friends will be working overtime for us.
That's ridiculous...
You forgot the meatballs
(sorry - this is a bit offtopic)
I (sadly) worked at Mc Donald's through my teen years. They used the same box standard coffee machines that are used anywhere - they are no hotter than anyone else's coffee, it was a stupid lawsuit which in any other country would have never been allowed. You wouldn't sue Ford if you crashed your car and got whiplash, why should you be able to sue Mc Donald's because you spilt coffee on yourself - of course its going to be hot!
You could argue that their coffee retained its temperature better - the cups are pretty well insulated, but even then - its not their fault if some idiot spills it down himself - its an unfortunate accident, but nobody is at fault. This is why the US judicial system is a joke from an outsiders point of view - its become a way to sue anyone for anything and is pathetic.
(now back on topic!)
I agree with an earlier comment by Peggy - that justice will prevail and XenForo will come out of this in a MUCH stronger position, which will also hopefully result in the Judge taking some form against IB for lying so blatantly. Perhaps some form of formal restraining order preventing IB from having any interaction with XenForo - anything to take them down a peg or two.
B
bogus
Guest
Well, a shame to read that. I would be interested to know what are the future plans now? Honestly!
I love my xF and i dont want to give it up
I will stay with the commanders... Harrrrrr
I love my xF and i dont want to give it up
I will stay with the commanders... Harrrrrr
F
Floris
Guest
I am really worried the law suit is going to wear them out financially. Even if they win, there's still a UK case against them. I really really hope that they are not being made an example, and that the points claimed against them will come with either very concrete evidence, or simply get individually dismissed. And I hope the UK trial will be dismissed on the fact there's a USA trial pending. And I hope it will not go beyond trial.
I hope the witnesses realize that perjury is a crime and showing up lying about the little things can actually have them end up in jail.
Looking forward to hear from Fabian for example what his point of view is on this, seeing he joined the team after the fact, unlike what their attorney (she registered in Cali?) claims in those pdf files.
Maybe when it goes to trial the Judge will not be occupied with thoughts about suits against himself, but has a clean mind at his age regarding the facts and is willing to listen to both sides and understands the technical situation of it all - realizing he's being played by IB and the justice system is a bit abused to lean "facts" into IB their favor.
That's just an opinion based on having no real information, and info only from what I understand from the pdf files and the posts in this thread. Apologies if I am simply wrong about whatever I said. I am not an attorney, nor involved in the case, and just hope that IB realizes they're ruining families by filing claims such as (paraphrasing) "we own the industry standard for the nofollow element in a tag and they used it!"
I hope the witnesses realize that perjury is a crime and showing up lying about the little things can actually have them end up in jail.
Looking forward to hear from Fabian for example what his point of view is on this, seeing he joined the team after the fact, unlike what their attorney (she registered in Cali?) claims in those pdf files.
Maybe when it goes to trial the Judge will not be occupied with thoughts about suits against himself, but has a clean mind at his age regarding the facts and is willing to listen to both sides and understands the technical situation of it all - realizing he's being played by IB and the justice system is a bit abused to lean "facts" into IB their favor.
That's just an opinion based on having no real information, and info only from what I understand from the pdf files and the posts in this thread. Apologies if I am simply wrong about whatever I said. I am not an attorney, nor involved in the case, and just hope that IB realizes they're ruining families by filing claims such as (paraphrasing) "we own the industry standard for the nofollow element in a tag and they used it!"
You may call me a pessimist, but I think that there are companies out there that are aware of this and still keeping on with their dirty business.
MGSteve
Well-known member
Given that the UK case is exactly the same (as far as I can tell) as the US case, if one is in progress before the other (which the CA one is) I can't see how the UK case could proceed.
You could get the ludicrous position otherwise where the US case finds in favour of IB and the UK case finds in favour of XF.
There has to be one court to decide on jurisdiction.
As regards to fees, there must be some lawyers out there who are prepared to take it on a no-win, no-fee basis. When you look at the facts involved, its so clearly a BS case by IB, the chances of XF loosing have to be tiny.
Ok, we thought it would get dismissed yesterday, but we still don't know the reasoning behind the decision and what K/M/A are going to do next.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
I don't understand this reasoning. I can understand arguing that a US court has no standing to hear a case because it doesn't have jurisdiction. That makes sense.
I don't understand the reasoning that two courts in two different countries with two completely different and separate legal systems cannot hear the case if both determine they have standing to do so. Can someone knowlegable please explain that? I'm not even smart enough to play a lawyer on TV when it comes to things like this.
My own jaded opinion is that these are legal systems, benefitting those who have money to pay for the best lawyers, not a justice system designed to decide issues fairly.
I do not follow this analogy. The cup didn't have dangerous packaging... But the Ferrari does have a powerful engine inside, and when you're going to use it carelessly, you might end up seriously injured. We're talking about a potential danger here, if you're going to sue companies for things that might happen when something goes wrong then you are fleeing from you own responsibility. There was no law before the accident for the temperature, Mc Donalds could use any temperature they thought was best for them and/or the customer. Why does that change after an accident happens? If you/the government think it's too dangerous, then make a law that limits the temperature. And then when Mc Donalds breaks that law, you can sue them for that. They didn't break any law here, so the settlement is unjust and gives a bad signal. And it's the reason more of these cases will happen.
Now it might not be such a bad thing when it happens to large corporations, but what if this happens to a young, potential company that goes bankrupt because of some careless customer?
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
No one knows yet.
Peggy
in memoriam 2016
That's ridiculous...
You forgot the meatballs
gawd you people are nutty, lol.
MGSteve
Well-known member
To be honest it was more common sense than law, but the law has proved time and again that common sense has nothing to do with the law.
Common sense suggests that it shouldn't be possible to be tried for practically the same offences in two countries and the courts reach separate conclusions, based upon the same facts. That's what I was hitting at.
Although I appreciate, its quite possible that it could happen.
Similar threads
- Solved
- Locked
