Tweet
With a simple question: Why?
-
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. " -
u mean crunch berries aren't healthy?
even if I thought I could win, I probably wouldn't file due to a thing in me called pride. I don't want to show how stupid I am to the rest of the world. -
The word is "crunchberries" not "berry" as the lawsuit so stupidly points out. It also says Cap'n Crunch" but I have yet to receive a "Cap" in my box, ever! Never really wanted a "crunch", whatever that would be.Comment
-
didn't someone sue once because the Captain Crunch didn't stay crunchy in milk? Or perhaps that was a joke from some late night talk show.Comment
-
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 SiddiquiComment
-
This is a dangerous precedent.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