Can you say "frivolous lawsuit"?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Spiffor
What "valuable lesson"?

You can't make an offer then rescind it when someone presents it to you just because you don't think they should.

[Odin]

I'm sure we'll eventually find out the offer on the coupon had expired.

[Zkribbler]

You people must learn that you ignore the wisdom of Imran at your peril. He's almost always right.

The issue of a coupon is a contractual offer. The customer presenting to Starbuck was an acceptance. She as a breach of contract claim, so her suit is not frivolous.

However, she has a "sanding" problem. That is, in most circumstances, a person may not sue for injuries to others--the plaintiff wouldn't have "standing" to bring the lawsuit.

This matter could be brought as a class action. But here, the plaintiff's claim would not be typical...that is, most people did not present the coupons. Starbucks could rescind its offer before people accepted.

So, it looks like she might have a valid lawsuit, capable of being heard in small claims court.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Do any of you work at Starbucks or any other location that serves boiling hot coffee?

If so, then please spill some on me, I promise to split what I get from the lawsuit. I could use some easy money.

Will the split be made before or after you pay for the three skin grafts the McDonald's lady had to undergo?

[DanS]

However, she has a "sanding" problem.

Ouch.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Japher
that's lame, exactly what I'd expect from Starbucks

though I have no idea why anyone would want coffee from that sheit hole

At the NYC meet Starbucks was a life saver. It seems good coffee shops haven't reached the east coast yet.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
You people must learn that you ignore the wisdom of Imran at your peril. He's almost always right.

The issue of a coupon is a contractual offer. The customer presenting to Starbuck was an acceptance. She as a breach of contract claim, so her suit is not frivolous.

However, she has a "sanding" problem. That is, in most circumstances, a person may not sue for injuries to others--the plaintiff wouldn't have "standing" to bring the lawsuit.

This matter could be brought as a class action. But here, the plaintiff's claim would not be typical...that is, most people did not present the coupons. Starbucks could rescind its offer before people accepted.

So, it looks like she might have a valid lawsuit, capable of being heard in small claims court.

Au contraire, mon frere - a contract also requires intent, or at least an informed awareness and action or lack of action from which intent can be inferred. Starbucks distributed the coupon to a set of employees, with instructions to pass those on to their family and friends. Starbucks never had the intention, obviously, of issuing an effectively infinite number of free drink coupons to anyone and everyone on the planet, nor did they intend to allow parties without any legal relationship to Starbucks to reproduce and redistribute those coupons.

Unless she can show her cousin Bubba down at the 'Possum Holler store sent her the coupon directly, she has a problem, in that she had no reasonable expectation that Starbucks intended to contract with her, and Starbucks was within its rights to rescind its offer by voiding the coupon before she attempted to use it. As a condition of rescission, she's entitled to a return of the consideration she gave Starbucks - namely, nothing.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You can't make an offer then rescind it when someone presents it to you just because you don't think they should.

For the employees and their friends and family members to whom the offer was made, that's a problem. For someone who essentially has what is arguably a copied or counterfeited coupon, to whom an offer was never made, then you really don't have a contract claim at all.

[MRT144]

is there a possibility that companies can start writing "we may use our discression to honor your coupon and reserve the right to refuse it."

[MichaeltheGreat]

A lot of coupons have disclaimers of various sorts - limited to stock on hand, max one per residence address, must be a licensed driver in whatever state, etc. Grocery stores in particular issue a lot of withdrawals due to typos, etc. - somewhat similar to Starbucks, in that they post a sign or notice that such and such an offer won't be honored due to such and such problem.

The bigger questions aren't the legality of it, but adverse publicity and wasted cost - the reasons for issuing coupons and special offers are to get new customers in, and to reward repeat customers. Screw that up, and you end up worse off then if you'd done nothing.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by MRT144
is there a possibility that companies can start writing "we may use our discression to honor your coupon and reserve the right to refuse it."

[Sniff] Smell that?? It's bait and switch.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'ld be surprised if most of the coupons don't already have the "valid at particpiating stores only" disclaimer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
For the employees and their friends and family members to whom the offer was made, that's a problem. For someone who essentially has what is arguably a copied or counterfeited coupon, to whom an offer was never made, then you really don't have a contract claim at all.

The fact that she may not win is irrelevant. The question Spiffor posed was what 'valuable lesson' Starbucks will learn. The lesson is always cover your ass, especially with coupons.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I think a lot of times, companies don't learn those lessons, regardless. There would have been all sorts of relatively simple ways of controlling the coupon to prevent abuse, but someone "had a good idea" and had the authority to act on it. The (possibly former) employee in question might learn a few lessons, but reality is that a lot of people in Starbucks (and most large companies) corporate and regional offices have the authority to do stupid and costly things.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Another interesting twist is I wonder if this will turn out to be one of those cases where an unscrupulous plaintiff's lawyer (yes, I know...) sought out someone to act as lead plaintiff for a little behind the scenes consideration. I find it hard to believe anyone would actually waste so much time and energy to contact a lawyer, do the up front work in filing a lawsuit, etc. without a little urging, or a little compensation. The lawyer can make a lot of money if this even looks like it's going anywhere, but the plaintiff has very little chance of making even close to minimum wage for her expenditure of time.