- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/13/19 at 12:58 pm to TOSOV
quote:
You are saying that a grocery doesn't have the right to pull chicken/fruit/veggies/etc that have been contaminated. Or a store doesn't have the right to pull a product from it's shelves that don't meet the standards they are wanting to portray by their company. So this says that it is right that a grocery can be held fully responsible for a customer getting sick from bad product that a store wasn't aware of or responsible for their quality control. Which I understand is the way it has been for yrs, but letting that be the norm has had its negatives and positives.
Are you saying I cannot sue them for this? I am not asking if I can WIN the suit...or, if it is economically feasible (my attorney cost being less than me potential recovery).
I don't know enough about this particular argument. But, so far...all I have seen from the detractors is the "defense".
I can sue you for defamation if you call me an idiot for this post. I won't WIN and it will cost me way more in time and money...so, I won't do it. But, there is nothing to stop me from suing.
There are frivolous suits filed every day.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:01 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
explain it.
You are arguing the merits. Idiotic. Standing requires a connection to harm. You act like it is black and white. It isn’t. That’s why Gorsuch and Thomas lost. Again...you don’t even understand basics. Where did you get your law degree? Send them back the money.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Standing requires a connection to harm
It was tossed once. I am not arguing the merits at all.
If the consumers were harmed they were harmed by the developers were they not? I can see standing for lawsuits against the developers but this idea that the third party retailer is liable for transactions between the developers and the consumers is BS.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:08 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
It was tossed once.
How did the Supreme Court rule?
quote:
I am not arguing the merits at all.
quote:
If the consumers were harmed they were harmed by the developers were they not?
Ummmmmmm...that is called arguing the merits. And your standard is wrong. I’ve already explained that all standing requires is a connection to harm. Again...you aren’t grasping basics and unable to understand why the United States Supreme Court, at least in part, disagrees with your analysis.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:09 pm to I B Freeman
quote:You do realize that just because you disagree with Kav, and Gorsuch disagrees with Kav, that this does NOT mean Gorsuch agrees with you, right?
You can call Gorsuch and Thomas and explain to them when you are finished.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:18 pm to I B Freeman
quote:but you against it so it must be good.
The conservatives were against it and the liberals including Kavanuagh and RBG were for it.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:21 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
You do realize that just because you disagree with Kav, and Gorsuch disagrees with Kav, that this does NOT mean Gorsuch agrees with you, right?
The ruling says NOTHING about the merits. Just that the plaintiff, as plead in the petition, has standing. IB’s head would explode if he knew how many pre-trial motions this case will see. His pearls are about to be clutched. A lot. I bet he prefers China’s court system.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:22 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The iPhone users’ claims rest “on just the sort of pass-on theory that Illinois Brick forbids,” Gorsuch concluded.
I agree with this and you and Bonds do not.
I got it.
This post was edited on 5/13/19 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 5/13/19 at 1:51 pm to I B Freeman
" a plaintif's dream"
I said earlier you guys need to watch Kavanaugh-
he has Souter II written all over him and I was virtually assassinated.
I said earlier you guys need to watch Kavanaugh-
he has Souter II written all over him and I was virtually assassinated.
Posted on 5/13/19 at 2:40 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
I agree with this and you and Bonds do not.
I got it.
What I disagree with is your characterization of Kav's reasons.
You asserted that Kav "expanded" Brick. Kav specifically makes no such ruling. Legally speaking, if that's what he wanted to do, he would have said so. Rather, he simply says this falls within Brick.
He may be wrong and that's an argument to be had. But, he did NOT rule that Brick should be expanded. Hence, on this point, Gorsuch and Kav appear to agree on the Brick limitations and simply disagree as to whether this fits in or not.
The fact you are viewing it thru a toddler's eyes notwithstanding
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News