With a simple question: Why?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Very Complex Legal Thread
Collapse
X
-
The same attorney had a similar case against Fruit Loops, referenced in the opinion linked in the OP. Clearly, the answer to "Why?" is because Hal Hewell is either (a) not particularly gifted at case assessment, (b) really desperate for work, or (c) all of the above. That said, I'm guessing his thought was that if he could squeeze the claim past the initial dismissal, PepsiCo (and Kellogg in the Fruit Loops case) would throw a little money at it to make it go away. If it survives dismissal, relatively easy money for him, and if not, he hasn't put himself out too much chasing it. Cursory research shows that his firm is a one-man shop in San Diego which has a handy PayPal link on its website through which clients can pay their bills. Not necessarily indicative of anything, but interesting on the PayPal part.Solomwi is very wise. - Imran Siddiqui
Comment
-
The survival of the instant claim would require this Court to ignore all concepts of personal responsibility and common sense. The Court has no intention of allowing that to happenOne day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Comment
Comment