It's not supposed to be funny at all. The poster is not completely correct if he was referring to the sale of only the service plans. Actually, implied merchantibility applies to the sale of goods by merchants. Implied merchantibility basically states that a good should generally function for the purpose for which it was manufactured. If that T-Mobile phone you bought doesn't work, the merchant is responsible for "curing" the goods, or giving you a refund. There does seem to be a implied breach of various warranties, of which one of them is breach of implied warranty of merchantibility (refusing to take back certain items when they were defective originally), however, this does not apply to the sale of the service plans themselves. In any contract between a merchant and a merchant or non-merchant (the consumer in this case), there are always three kinds of implicit warranties, of which merchantibility is one.
America has been wronged. The BBC clearly hates freedom. Effective noon tomorrow, we will be invading the small island nation of BBC. Their weapons of mass communication must be obliterated: if we can't have the Olympics, no one can.
Please read the statute more carefully. It does NOT apply here, since this is not a modern concerning the general public interest, as the statute clearly states. This legislation was drafted with the implication that large corporate entities should not abuse legal process by snuffing out speech which would be of broader concern to the public. This was previously common in California because individuals, when faced by corporate legal teams, would be afraid to say something critical of larger corporate bodies for fear of retaliation, even though that criticism may have been valid. For example, some individual would come out against corporate pollution: clearly a matter of public concern, especially for California. The object of the suit could sue for malicious prosecution but this is next to impossible to prove in the American legal system. An opinion as to the substance of a suit has little to due with whether it is actually abusive of the legal process.
Why do people act like this says anything about the state of torts in this country? The case hasn't even been TRIED for godsakes. How is it an example of why we need tort reform? Is it because the man has equal access to the courts? Well gee, we should strip him of that too! Hasn't anyone stopped to consider that this man is trying his against a gigantic corporate entity? Even if he had a legitimate grievance (which I concede he does not), he would still be screwed. Cries of tort reform should be addressed at genuine abuses of the system, not this baloney (again, for which the proceedings have not even begun).
Slashdot Mirror
It's not supposed to be funny at all. The poster is not completely correct if he was referring to the sale of only the service plans. Actually, implied merchantibility applies to the sale of goods by merchants. Implied merchantibility basically states that a good should generally function for the purpose for which it was manufactured. If that T-Mobile phone you bought doesn't work, the merchant is responsible for "curing" the goods, or giving you a refund. There does seem to be a implied breach of various warranties, of which one of them is breach of implied warranty of merchantibility (refusing to take back certain items when they were defective originally), however, this does not apply to the sale of the service plans themselves. In any contract between a merchant and a merchant or non-merchant (the consumer in this case), there are always three kinds of implicit warranties, of which merchantibility is one.
America has been wronged. The BBC clearly hates freedom. Effective noon tomorrow, we will be invading the small island nation of BBC. Their weapons of mass communication must be obliterated: if we can't have the Olympics, no one can.
Please read the statute more carefully. It does NOT apply here, since this is not a modern concerning the general public interest, as the statute clearly states. This legislation was drafted with the implication that large corporate entities should not abuse legal process by snuffing out speech which would be of broader concern to the public. This was previously common in California because individuals, when faced by corporate legal teams, would be afraid to say something critical of larger corporate bodies for fear of retaliation, even though that criticism may have been valid. For example, some individual would come out against corporate pollution: clearly a matter of public concern, especially for California. The object of the suit could sue for malicious prosecution but this is next to impossible to prove in the American legal system. An opinion as to the substance of a suit has little to due with whether it is actually abusive of the legal process.
No one can replace the Jewish American Princess, what with her snooty attitude and come-hither glances. Come on.. baby needs a new BMW
Why do people act like this says anything about the state of torts in this country? The case hasn't even been TRIED for godsakes. How is it an example of why we need tort reform? Is it because the man has equal access to the courts? Well gee, we should strip him of that too! Hasn't anyone stopped to consider that this man is trying his against a gigantic corporate entity? Even if he had a legitimate grievance (which I concede he does not), he would still be screwed. Cries of tort reform should be addressed at genuine abuses of the system, not this baloney (again, for which the proceedings have not even begun).
defcon stands for DEFinitely CONned out of a social life.
Wow, google finally fucked up for once.