 
Main Menu
|
Nevada Classics
|
Advertise at CC
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|
|
|
CC Advertisers
|
|

02-04-2003, 03:14 PM
|
 |
Senior Club Cobra Member
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: God's country,
ME
Cobra Make, Engine: Original ERA 427sc, Powered by Gessford
Posts: 2,678
|
|
Not Ranked
The worst thing about the McDonals'd case is that the judge gave them another shot. If he had stopped at dismissing the complaint and left it at that it would have been fine. But, in his ruling, he continued to explain to the plaintiffs how they could amend their complaint so that it might withstand a motion to dismiss. Now McD's is going to be inundated with all sorts of discovery to determine what is contained in their chicken mcnuggets. The judge stated that if the mcnuggets turn out to be "McMonsters" (I think that was the term he used) and contain harmful ingredients that people would not expect to find in mcnuggets, the plaintiffs might have a viable claim. Talk about judicial activism at its worst. Just as it is common knowledge that a steady diet of burgers and fries will make you fat, isn't also common knowledge that McNuggets are an amalgamation of all sorts of crap?? 
__________________
Replica is not a dirty word.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning."
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 AM.
Links monetized by VigLink
|