• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Woman sues ‘Jelly Belly,' claims she didn't know jelly beans contained sugar

Woman sues ‘Jelly Belly,' claims she didn't know jelly beans contained sugar

Woman sues ?Jelly Belly,? claims she didn?t know jelly beans contained sugar | Boston 25 News

She's and idiot or dishonest.

Assorted-Nutrition.jpg
 
She's and idiot or dishonest.

Assorted-Nutrition.jpg

So you figure it's fair to demand that a consumer be able to read before they make an informed purchase? Maybe she was illiterate. Maybe she isn't fluent in English.















Maybe she's so damned dumb that she shouldn't be allowed in public for her own safety.
 
from the same gene pool as the lady who sued McDonald's because her coffee was "hot"

here's your sign.....

That case had legit merits. I've learned that most people who cite that case don't know anything about it. Even the media didn't simplify it that much.
 
:doh The McD's coffee thing always derails threads like this.

you dont think those two people are cut from the same cloth?

they both seem the have the intelligence quotient of an ice cube....

seemed an appropriate analogy to me....
 
you dont think those two people are cut from the same cloth?

they both seem the have the intelligence quotient of an ice cube....

seemed an appropriate analogy to me....
It derails threads, that's all I said. Post #9 being the first of what will probably be many examples.
 
Who's the lawyer who's taking this? Disbar the moron.

Where did she buy the jelly beans? The.....candy aisle, perhaps? What the **** did she think they were going to be made from?
 
She's and idiot or dishonest.

Assorted-Nutrition.jpg

I hope that she gets her day in court and the blatant deception of calling sugar "evaporated cane juice" gets called out. I do think that she falls into the "too stupid to be allowed to reproduce" category for not knowing where sugar comes from, but the use of "evaporated cane juice" in place of "sugar" is intended to take advantage of just such stupidity. IMO, BOTH parties are in the wrong.
 
The government regulators allow it, and they are experts, and they represent the people, so I say that it should not be ruled a bad act by the branch of the government called the courts.

I have long said the same thing about manufacturing and selling cigarettes.
 
I hope that she gets her day in court and the blatant deception of calling sugar "evaporated cane juice" gets called out. I do think that she falls into the "too stupid to be allowed to reproduce" category for not knowing where sugar comes from, but the use of "evaporated cane juice" in place of "sugar" is intended to take advantage of just such stupidity. IMO, BOTH parties are in the wrong.

It says right there in black and white, Sugars 17g.

Can't get much more explicit than that.
 
Stupid should be painful, every time

I hope the judges makes her pay all the legal fees as he throws her out of court.
 
I hope the judges makes her pay all the legal fees as he throws her out of court.

and admonish the her lawyer for allowing such a case to be filed.:lol:
 
So you figure it's fair to demand that a consumer be able to read before they make an informed purchase? Maybe she was illiterate. Maybe she isn't fluent in English.















Maybe she's so damned dumb that she shouldn't be allowed in public for her own safety.

She assumed it was non-sugar because it did not say on it in large letters "sugar". You know, if it is sugar free they put it on there so if it did not say "sugar" she assumed it was non-sugar. Which is an idiotic kind of reasoning so yes, she is either totally stupid or she is trying to pull a fast one on the company.
 
from the same gene pool as the lady who sued McDonald's because her coffee was "hot"

here's your sign.....

You obviously have absolutely no ****ing clue what you're talking about:

Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, which was provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[13][14]

Liebeck sought to settle with McDonald's for $20,000 to cover her actual and anticipated expenses. Her past medical expenses were $10,500; her anticipated future medical expenses were approximately $2,500; and her daughter's[12] loss of income was approximately $5,000 for a total of approximately $18,000.[15] Instead, the company offered only $800. When McDonald's refused to raise its offer, Liebeck retained Texas attorney Reed Morgan. Morgan filed suit in New Mexico District Court accusing McDonald's of "gross negligence" for selling coffee that was "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured". McDonald's refused Morgan's offer to settle for $90,000. Morgan offered to settle for $300,000, and a mediator suggested $225,000 just before trial, but McDonald's refused these final pre-trial attempts to settle.[2]

~wikipedia

You should leave that victim out of your culture war.
 
Back
Top Bottom