Looking for a mid-size domestic car recommendation

That may be true for some, but people who know the law or simply think
they know the law and want to make life miserable for a decent amnd
reasonable landlord can indeed make life miserable. As one example, it
used to be that landlords routinely used to allow occasional late rent
with a credible reason, as long as it didn't become a habit. Today a
landlord is opening him/herself up to a lawsuit if they give grace to
one person and not to another, even though the former had an arguably
valid reason for being late, and the latter was a parasite. Result? A
landlord has to turn into an asshole and not listen to any
reason/excuse, no matter how justified, and charge late fees, send
letters threatening to evict if not paid by such and such a date, etc.,
even though he trusts the particular tenant to make good on the late
rent, in order to pre-emptively preserve his/her rights to evict in the
one-in-a hundred chance that the back-rent never gets paid and to
protect him/herself from a lawsuit (discrimination or otherwise).

It's also why a landlord is at risk unless he has a 10 to 20 page lease
to cover all the contingencies, and even then, in certain
landlord-hostile legal systems (Detroit, parts of New Jersey, parts of
New York, much of California), even a perfectly reasonable and legal
lease will not hold up in court of law.

Those are just examples of the legal environment - and why I just got
rid of my rental property a few months ago (and I am in a place that has
a reasonable and fair legal system). I reiterate: An asshole lawyer or
pre-law or law student can make life miserable for a decent and fair
landlord.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Maybe you were intentionally being silly, but your fallacy there is in
thinking that in a reformed tort system anyone should be awarded $10k,
much less $20 million, for being served coffee that was "too hot".

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Maybe you are being silly. Either that or you missed my serious ideas for
tort reform.
And if you knew the true facts of the McDonald's case you would know that it
was judged by a very conservative Nixon appointee and he thought McDonald's
deserved what they got.

 

You forgot to include Massachusetts in your list of states which make if
difficult for landlords.... unless things have changed

 

If you did a google search you would know what was special about the
McDonald's case. The judge was a very conservative Nixon appointee and he
could have overruled the jury but he thought McDonald's got exactly what
they deserved.
They had purposely designed a means to serve ultra hot coffee so people
would still have hot coffee after eating their hamburger. They did not want
people to get on line again to get their coffee re-warmed. They had
received thousands of complaints of burns from their coffee and ignored
them. In fact the injured woman had needed several surgeries to repair her
injury and had written several letters to McDOnald's asking for out of
pocket reimbursement for medical expenses. Only when her letters were
ignored did she sue. Indeed McDonald's got what they deserved. And the
result is cooler coffee at McDonald's.

 

$25 million? Hey - why not $1 billion. Or why not $10 billion. How
absurd.

I have complained to hotels that their bath water was way too hot if
turned all the way to "Hot" - that someone could get scalded (and
possibly sue). $25 million for that? No way. At that rate, I should
get maybe $20k for bringing it to their attention.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Good, McDonald's no longer has hot coffee... what a relief. Why does the
judge matter at all? I don't see how that has any bearing on it being a
stupid pay out. Obviously the judge thought they deserved it, he approved
it. I think that goes without saying. Ultra hot coffee? How hot is that?
As far as I have been told fresh brewed coffee is supposed to be between
185º and 200ºF... and seeing as coffee is mostly water, this doesn't leave
much room for "ultra hot" coffee... about 12º. So now McDonald's probably
has to keep their coffee about 145ºF so it is made poorly and tastes like
shit. Nothing like a fresh cup of bean acid during that morning drive to
work. It should be common knowledge that you make coffee by heating water
to near boiling, and we all learned long ago that a pan of boiling water can
scald us severely. Why is it that this lady suddenly is a victim because a
cup of fresh coffee is hot? It's suppose to be hot.

 

That is because the more money was involved with the Tobacco companies
and also the perception that tobacco is "evil" helped as well.

Matt

 

And he was wrong. The person who put hot coffee between her legs got
what she deserved. We shouldn't reward stupidity with cash. It sets a
very bad precedent. Look at all of the stupid cases now with respect to
Oreos, eating at McDonalds, etc. This only ties up an already burdened
court system and means that real issues may have to wait too long to be
heard. And it increases the costs for us all. Stupidity should have
consequences, and they should be NEGATIVE consequences.


Matt

 

And we now all get to drink lukewarm coffee because somebody was too
stupid to handle hot coffee, which was clearly marked on the cup. If
people didn't want hot coffee, they didn't have to buy their coffee at
McDonalds.

Matt

 

And then Alcohol with "Mothers against Drunk Drivers" (MADD),
use of the internet with "homeland security's" persuit of Terrorists.
etc, etc, etc.
This is afterall, home of the McCarthy "commie" witch hunts.

 

_________________________________________________________

I must disagree. Transferring money from one person or group to another
person or group does *not* spur the economy. True wealth can only be
created by the sweat of one's brow, both personally and nation-wide.
Paper shuffles do not do anything of benefit to the economy as a whole.

 

Sure it can. Transferring money to a person who will invest it in
something that increases our GDP is adding to the economy. Someone who
just hoards their money under a mattress does nothing to increase
wealth. So moving money from a place where it isn't working to a place
where it can work, definitely benefits the economy as a whole.


Matt

 

Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you
know, including the amount involved, is wrong.
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

 

Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you
know, including the amount involved, is wrong.
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

 

Maybe you would be interested in the facts of the case. Most of what you
know, including the amount involved, is wrong.
http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

 

That's a fallacious argument. By that logic, it would help the economy
for a juvenile delinquent to throw a rock through a local shopkeeper's
window. No wealth was created by the act, but some would say that the
economy was boosted by the work created to manufacture the glass,
replace the window, provide gas for the service truck of the window
crew, employment taxes paid by the window crew, etc., etc, etc. Extend
the argument to it's logical conclusion, and one would conclude that we
would all be helping society by sneaking around at night breaking
windows, slicing tires, burning down buildings, flying planes into
buildings, etc., when common sense says that it is actually a net drain
on society.

There are three ways that wealth is "created":
(1) By mining it
(2) By growing it
(3) By manufacturing it (from what was mined or grown).

That having been said, sometimes, "make work" programs can free up some
of that money that was being held on to so tightly: TVA is one example -
otherwise unemployed people were paid money, and benefits were derived
form their work. Wars can spurr the economy too. But I can't help but
feel that the world would have been better off if Hitler had not boosted
the economy of the whole world by doing the things he did. Perhaps the
"currency" that can't be factored in is the human misery and suffering -
hard to put that on the balance sheet. Obviously, I haven't quite got
all this figured out - but I do know that causing money to flow by
intentionally destroying property is not good economics.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Indeed the result is cooler coffee at McDonald's,
albeit at a much higher price. You, the consumer
ALWAYS pays for the doings of the shark lawyers.
Either the retail price goes up or the company like,
Johns Manville and Corning, go bankrupt and go out of business.
Their thousands of employees end up loosing their jobs. Come to
think of it, that is one way to create more jobs in NC, vote for
Kerry/Edwards. If Edwards gets to be VP there will be one less
shark
there to rob the people that create the jobs there. LOL

 

You mean the way Warren Buffit did?


mike hunt

 

I just read the entire article at the site you listed above. It didn't
change my mind one bit. This was a stupid lawsuit.

You could replace "hot coffee" in that article with almost any consumer
product that is dangerous if missused, anything from a circular saw to a
chain saw to a lawnmower. I own a chain saw that can cause much more
damage in much less time than spilled McDonald's coffee. If I mess up
and cut my leg off should Stihl be liable simply because their product
has the capacity to cause harm?

This is the stupidest legal theory I've ever seen, but it is,
unfortunately, being applied to many products these days. In another 20
years we won't be able to buy a knife that is sharp enough to cut a
sandwich, power tools, etc., because the risk to anyone who makes them
will simply outweight the business benefit of selling them.


Matt