Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This Just In: Crunchberries Aren't A Fruit!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This Just In: Crunchberries Aren't A Fruit!!

    Well, apparently someone sued Pepsico (manufacturer of Cap'n Crunch) on the theory that she was misled into believing that the cereal contained the fruit, "crunchberries." The Court, while all but calling her an idiot, dismissed the action saying that no reasonable consumer could have been misled into thinking that the cereal contained the fruit, "Crunchberries." Here's the actual opinion:

    http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Do...nchberries.pdf

  • #2
    I thought they were related to cranberries myself. Don't tell me they are not real fruit.

    Comment


    • #3
      So, you mean Captain Crunch has been imitating an officer all this time ?

      Where will this end ???

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hoc
        Well, apparently someone sued Pepsico (manufacturer of Cap'n Crunch) on the theory that she was misled into believing that the cereal contained the fruit, "crunchberries." The Court, while all but calling her an idiot, dismissed the action saying that no reasonable consumer could have been misled into thinking that the cereal contained the fruit, "Crunchberries." Here's the actual opinion:

        http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Do...nchberries.pdf
        Did you notice in the decision that ¶'s counsel previously argued and lost essentially the same case in a suit against Kellogg regarding Fruit Loops? In such situations can't a court order payment of PesiCo/Quaker defense costs on the basis of frivolous litigation?
        “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

        “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

        “You shouldn't wear that body.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. R. Oglodyte
          In such situations can't a court order payment of PesiCo/Quaker defense costs on the basis of frivolous litigation?
          Likely not, because the attorney was probably representing a different client in the prior litigation. And, yes, I did notice.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hoc
            Likely not, because the attorney was probably representing a different client in the prior litigation. And, yes, I did notice.
            Ahhh, a technicality. Dollars to doughnuts in both cases the attorney came up with the case and then sought out the plaintiff to represent.

            I run into that occasionally with environmental statutes that have citizen lawsuit provisions. Legal firms have interns research agency files to find reported violations. A few months later, presto, the suit is filed and guess who happens to plaintiff's counsel??
            “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

            “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

            “You shouldn't wear that body.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Well I guess I can stop searching nurseries for those crunchberry bushes/trees.

              Comment


              • #8
                What's next? The revelation that Rocky Mountain Oysters aren't shellfish?
                Jim

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Elan View Post
                  What's next? The revelation that Rocky Mountain Oysters aren't shellfish?
                  Or that buffalo don't have wings?
                  “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

                  “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

                  “You shouldn't wear that body.”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Hoc
                    Well, apparently someone sued Pepsico (manufacturer of Cap'n Crunch) on the theory that she was misled into believing that the cereal contained the fruit, "crunchberries." The Court, while all but calling her an idiot, dismissed the action saying that no reasonable consumer could have been misled into thinking that the cereal contained the fruit, "Crunchberries." Here's the actual opinion:

                    http://kevinunderhill.typepad.com/Do...nchberries.pdf
                    Noooooooooo! Next, someone is going to tell me the Easter bunny doesn't exist or that Santa Claus isn't real.

                    What a cruel cruel world.
                    Mike H
                    Wyndham Fairshare Plus Owners, Be cool and join the Wyndham/FairfieldHOA forum!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Good Grief!!

                      All these posts have completely destroyed my image of the world, from berries to oysters.
                      M. Henley

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Do you suppose that maybe my timeshare isn't going to triple in value over the next ten years, and that I can't rent it out for four times my annual fees?
                        “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

                        “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

                        “You shouldn't wear that body.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. R. Oglodyte
                          Or that buffalo don't have wings?
                          What!!?? They don't? Then how do you explain the flying buffalo I saw last week when I was drinking Margaritas?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This item seems to fit with this thread:

                            A’s Settle Class Action Brought By Male Lawyer Irked At Mother’s Day Giveaway

                            Just in time for Father's Day this weekend, a San Diego lawyer and the Oakland A's have settled a controversial class-action lawsuit over a Mother's Day giveaway in 2004.

                            The $500,000 accord ends a five-year sex discrimination suit in which lawyer Alfred Rava complained he and other men couldn't get a free plaid reversible hat offered to women who attended the May 8, 2004, game, the Oakland Tribune reports.

                            Rava, who draws the ire of tort reformers, also has sued Macy's department stores, the sponsor of the giveaway.

                            The settlement, which is expected to be made final in August, allows payment of up to $250,000 for 2,500 men who can prove they were at the game. Each individual can receive up to $100. A remaining $260,000 is being set aside for court-approved attorney fees and includes an enhancement fee" up to $20,000 for Rava for representing the class.

                            Rava is no stranger to this type of litigation, according to numerous press accounts. The Oakland Tribune notes that Rava has acted as counsel or plaintiff in several Southern California actions against restaurants, nightclubs and other businesses that offer Ladies' Night promotions.
                            “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

                            “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

                            “You shouldn't wear that body.”

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Hoc View Post
                              What!!?? ........... when I was drinking Margaritas?
                              Are you ssuurre they were Margaritas? Whooo told you they were margaritas? They might have been misrepresenting themselves as margaritas. They might have just been lime juice and Agave for all you know.

                              I think you have a case of misrepresentation but of course you should seek legal council.

                              That could be worth at least 2.5 billion in todays economy to you and yours.

                              Need a good lawyer? Just come to Miami. We've got lots of unemployed ones looking for something to do. Foreclosures are getting too boring.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X