Starbucks sued for $114 million over a freebie

[bull]

From my (albeit very limited) knowledge of contracts cases, I think the plaintiffs will have a very steep uphill battle.  $20 says this goes in favor of Starbucks.


...but don't construe that as an offer.

look at this guy...he's in law school for a week and he already thinks he's the late, great, Johnny Cochran.

The words "great" and "Johnny Cochran" should not go in the same sentence unless the word "loser" or something similar is between them.

you can question Johnny Cochran's character all you want, but any lawyer that could get a blatantly guilty OJ Simpson off is great in my book.

Great as in notable or remarkable, sure. Great as in wonderful or virtuous, hardly. Jeffrey Dahmer was a great killer, Stalin was a great political leader and Rosie O'Donnell is a great pain in the a$$. Yea, Cochran is the pinnacle of all defense attorneys, but what does that say about him? Johnny Cochran: The greatest of America's bottom-feeders. It's like hlpag.com bragging about selling the most Chargers in North America or Radhakant Bajpai bragging about having the world's longest ear hair.

[Vainglory, Esq.]

Not that I'd disagree with you in principle - OJ was guilty and Johnnie Cochran got him off.  That's probably bad.

Then again, every criminal defendant has a right to representation, and every lawyer has an ethical duty to provide rigorous representation.  Johnnie Cochran likely could have been as good as a prosecutor (it's kind of like modern sophism, really), so what I would do would be blame the jury and/or the judge.

[dodge freak]

How about blaming the LA police department ? And what about the glove that did not fit ? That racist cop Mark Furman-not spelled right-may have very well planted that glove over at OJ house. And Mrs. Simpson was living with a know coke head. How does anybody know it was not a drug deal gone bad ? You could had Ron Goldman set the deal up and who ever was selling the junk killed both of them and took all the money, maybe thousands of dollars. That would explain why the glove did not fit. Anybody who thinks they know what happen -I don't, just guessing- does not. The only person who really knows if OJ did do it is OJ himself and IF he did not do it the person who really did.

[PocketThunder]

 

[Ponch ®]

Then again, every criminal defendant has a right to representation, and every lawyer has an ethical duty to provide rigorous representation.  Johnnie Cochran likely could have been as good as a prosecutor (it's kind of like modern sophism, really), so what I would do would be blame the jury and/or the judge.

That's my point. He was hired to do a job (defend OJ) and he did it well. He somehow managed to convince the jury that his client was not guilty,despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Using the "race card" to manipulate the jury was an ethically suspect tactic, but then, like you said, the jury bought into it. That's what happens in a "trial by a jury of peers" system. You're liable to be at the mercy of a bunch of gullible dumbasses.

Maybe he was framed by Fuhrman and the LAPD, maybe he wasn't. In a system where the accused are innocent until proven guilty, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. You can argue that Johnny Cochran did a better job at convincing the jury that he was framed than the prosecution did that he was not. 

[bull]

Not that I'd disagree with you in principle - OJ was guilty and Johnnie Cochran got him off.  That's probably bad.

Then again, every criminal defendant has a right to representation, and every lawyer has an ethical duty to provide rigorous representation.  Johnnie Cochran likely could have been as good as a prosecutor (it's kind of like modern sophism, really), so what I would do would be blame the jury and/or the judge.

Sure. Cochran was just doing his job and doing it well, albeit a despicable occupation IMO. I think there are some defense attorneys who really seek justice and are convinced their clients are innocent. The ones that bother me are the ones that know their client is guilty and yet do everything within their power to get them off on the slightest shred of a technicality. The system is not perfect and I think that particular part of it is the most questionable, frustrating and unjust. As far as the jury is concerned, it was chosen by the defense for the most part. Yea, I know the members are chosen by both the defense and prosecution but in the OJ trial the defense definitely came out on top in jury selection. I think the prosecutors did a horrible job overall from beginning to end. They should have never had him try the glove on (what idiot doesn't know that leather gloves shrink when wet and then shrivel up like a prune as they dry?). Basically, the whole debacle amounted to TV's first big time reality show. As long as the American public is entertained justice has prevailed, right? Maybe Cochran was not that awesome, maybe the prosecution was just that bad.

[Orange_Crush]

To be honest, I think the people to blame for the OJ verdict are Marcia Clark and her "team."  They were about as worthless as a football bat.

[Old Moparz]

First, I want to say that I agree, McD's coffee was always too damn hot to drink. I also want to add that it tastes like crap, so I never risked any injury with it. Starbuck's has a menu I don't even read, all I want is a good, plain, cup of coffee, so if I go there I ask for a plain cup of coffee that's a $1.50 & not where I need to go to an ATM to cover the price. I have no interest in ordering any flavor of the day, like cranberry-nut-&-twig-mocha-latte-grande, with a drizzle of caramel & yak urine in it.   
I never even got a coupon, so I don't care about all the poor cry babies in line. If you spend all day in line looking for a free cup of coffee, then you're an idiot. The panhandler on the corner, (well, he was on the corner until Starbuck's called the cops to chase him away so he doesn't scare the customers) has one up on you. He'll get enough to buy it in a few minutes, & then go to Dunkin' Donuts because he can bath in the bathroom there without getting tossed out, then get his coffee without a line & still have enough left to go get a bottle of Thunderbird.

Too many lawyers make it worse than being too competitive. They need to create work by being creative, or they will all be asking "Do you want fries with that?" I knew about the lawsuit the old woman had & McD's attitude, but I think the amount was ridiculous. Stupidity is still running wild & there will be far worse cases of it to come. I will say that Starbuck's screwed up if they back peddled on an offer. They should have eaten it & nobody would care, but maybe they learned.

I still see & hear stores claim the ads are wrong. I just went to Circuit City to get a DVD/VCR recorder that was advertised cheap. When I went to pay, it was suddenly double & the clerk said the ad was a mistake. That's BS because Circuit City has a reputation of being deceitful. I don't normally go there, & that just solidified my opinion of them & I won't go back. I won't sue them, but I do tell people about why they should shop at a competitor.

I guess I'm bored too.

[dodge freak]

What about these new car ads the dealers run saying a new car cost $15,000 when its over $20,000 ? I live in Michigan and thats all you see everyday in the new car ads. How can they keep doing it I like to know.

[defiance]

...albeit a despicable occupation IMO. I think there are some defense attorneys who really seek justice and are convinced their clients are innocent.

How is ensuring "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" dispicable?  That's their job.  And since defense attorneys are required BY LAW to do their absolute best to defend their client, regardless of the client's actual guilt or innocense, making ANY judgement about the client's guilt is actually unethical. 

Insulting attorneys for making the American way of life possible is absolutely misguided.

Now, insulting the litigious "ambulance-chaser" type attorneys, that's a different story...   

[dodge freak]

In most cases how does somebody really know if the person is guilty or innocent ?

Remember some guys even say they are guilty when they are not. And it does happen all the time, just not often people hear about it. Some need to be in a hospital not in jail.

Yes I think its those sue everybody for everything lawyers that give the whole bunch a bad name.

[bull]

...albeit a despicable occupation IMO. I think there are some defense attorneys who really seek justice and are convinced their clients are innocent.

How is ensuring "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt" dispicable?  That's their job.  And since defense attorneys are required BY LAW to do their absolute best to defend their client, regardless of the client's actual guilt or innocense, making ANY judgement about the client's guilt is actually unethical. 

Insulting attorneys for making the American way of life possible is absolutely misguided.

Now, insulting the litigious "ambulance-chaser" type attorneys, that's a different story...   

Same thing for the most part.

[89MOPAR]

How about blaming the LA police department ? And what about the glove that did not fit ? That racist cop Mark Furman-not spelled right-may have very well planted that glove over at OJ house. And Mrs. Simpson was living with a know coke head. How does anybody know it was not a drug deal gone bad ? You could had Ron Goldman set the deal up and who ever was selling the junk killed both of them and took all the money, maybe thousands of dollars. That would explain why the glove did not fit. Anybody who thinks they know what happen -I don't, just guessing- does not. The only person who really knows if OJ did do it is OJ himself and IF he did not do it the person who really did.

Try opening your hand as wide as possible, then while keeping it open, try to slip a glove over it. That is basically what the defense did. No-one can fit a glove on like that. You close your hand in to put on a glove until your fingers are inside... As to the stupididty of the jurors for not recognizing that , well - enough said.

  If the lady had pulled off her knickers, it wouldn't have burned so bad.

Last quarter Starbucks officially blamed their "disappointing revenues" and subsequent stock price decline on the idea that their iced coffee frappuchino drink " took to long to make compared with other drinks " resulting in customers not waiting in line and leaving.  Now why would a company with that problem issue unlimited coupons for the very product that caused their "disappointing revenues" ?   
Hmmmn.....

[Shakey]

I liked the Seinfeld episode when Sue Ellen Mishke tried to put the bra on in court.   

[Orange_Crush]

  If the lady had pulled off her knickers, it wouldn't have burned so bad.

At 185 degrees, it takes a liquid 3 seconds to cause deep tissue 3rd degree burns.  Try pulling your knickers off while you're in a car seat wearing a seatbelt in less than three seconds.

[dodge freak]

Its this blame the victim allways thinking that insurance company's love. No thought as to the type of person and what she was doing. Most people like to add cream in their coffee, it was common sense that a person could get some on their lap. Just cause thousands of people don't does not mean she was wrong. You can run a red light hundreds of times without having an accident but you are still wrong doing that.

[nh_mopar_fan]

Only an effing idiot would put a hot coffee between their legs to add cream to it.

[dodge freak]

Well theres lots of idiots in the world and maybe at 80+ years old she could not hold the cup with one hand. Is that her fault ? If people were not so dumb things would be much different but cars are made to crash without causing unnecessary harm, guns are made to be drop without firing, things that can happen are not allways the persons 100 % fault if the other party could have foreseen that happing and took steps to lessen the harm. Now of days McD's coffee is not as hot and people still buy it and if another idiot gets some on their lap they are not hurt as bad. Whats so wrong about that ? Could be somebody you love one day.

[defiance]

Jeez, man, people spill coffee *EVERY DAY*.  If you drink coffee and you've never spilled coffee on yourself, well goody-fer-farkin-you, you're probably the only one in the whole darned world.

Whether she should've been more careful, sure, she should've.  And we all should've those many times we all spilled coffee, too.

But when spilling coffee, something we've probably ALL done, causes THIRD DEGREE BURNS, something is wrong!!!

[Orange_Crush]

McDonalds, previous to this lawsuit, had settled 700 claims of injury in ten years against them due to the high temperature of their coffee.  They could have gotten away with paying 20,000 dollars for her medical bills, but they refused and the case was taken to court. Any jury, given those circumstances, would find negligence on the part of McDonalds.

[694spdRT]

I don't drink coffee but the hot chocolate out of the local McD's automatic dispenser is so hot I have to add ice to the cup before filling or wait 15 minutes for it to cool down. I wonder what temp that stuff is served at?

[Brock Samson]

dump it in your lap and find out.. 

[dodge freak]

 

[694spdRT]

dump it in your lap and find out.. 

But now if the lawyers find this thread it would show intent and my case would be thrown out of court...

[dodge freak]

Yes-Suing isn't as easy as some people think. I don't think that old lady was looking for a lawsuit when they went over to McD. Wish there was a way to stop these "looking for a lawsuit folks" without perventing the people who deserve to win their cases. I seen-know- people TRY to get hurt by a bus or cab just so they can sue. Those people hurt everybody.