Fine Points of Law

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

That doesn't mean we need lawyers for everything. I don't see how suggesting that society depends too much on legal arbitration for personal issues = advocating anarchy and absence of a legal system. Thats a bit of an extreme interpretation.

Did I say we need lawyers for everything? I'm sure you realize how complex the justice system is..here and in most first world nations..which is why we have lawyers...judges..etc, etc.

Give me a good example where someone used a lawyer...but didn't need one? Divorce? You need a lawyer to settle a divorce case...

Sure you can argue that the couple should settle their problems without going through the court system...but who decides which couple is supposed to do that..and which one isn't?

Again...knowing how expensive lawyers are....I'm pretty sure people are not glad to fork out 10 grand just to settle something they could do without going through the courts.

Like Troutman said...sure..there are many situations were problems can be solved without consulting legal advice. But eventually..you need the law.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree....but many times that is the first thing people choose, instead of trying to work it out on their own.

Where? Example?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

your interpretations of what i said are completely ridiculous.

it's sick really.

maybe some people are sick of me having to defend myself?

maybe you could develop your own opinions, instead of fabricating false opinions of mine to attack.

I guess everyone should accept your viewpoint as accurate...WITHOUT any flaws...just so you don't have to defend yourself.

Right..

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess everyone should accept your viewpoint as accurate...WITHOUT any flaws...just so you don't have to defend yourself.

Right..

challenge MY viewpoint then.

problem is, you INVENT a viewpoint to challenge, then just insult when called on it.

this is a board for discussion, keep the insults to pms please.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Where? Example?

What??? Every day every where. Neigbor has music to load...call the police instead of saolving the problem on there own.

A few days ago we were talking about some guy who's neighbors dog kept coming into his yard. Many people said...call bylaw...call the police. WHAT...go talk to the neighbor first.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What??? Every day every where. Neigbor has music to load...call the police instead of saolving the problem on there own.

A few days ago we were talking about some guy who's neighbors dog kept coming into his yard. Many people said...call bylaw...call the police. WHAT...go talk to the neighbor first.

totally!

i lived in country hills for two years, and when we were a bit loud after 10 on a saturday, the cops would show up!

neighbour had a job driving a school bus, parked in the back driveway. city bylaw officer came by to tow it for noise, as it had to start up at early in the winter mornings. she lost her job. total joke.

both of these 'problems' could be fixed by people calmly coming by to discuss things.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Where? Example?

A guy sued ticketmaster once because he fell down the stairs at a stadium. I'd call that an example of frivolous use of the legal system. I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of people abusing the legal system for their own personal ends.

Are you under the impression that every time a lawyer is engaged it is because it is completely necessary and justified? Really? Every single time? Now I'll use the emoticons...

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

What??? Every day every where. Neigbor has music to load...call the police instead of saolving the problem on there own.

A few days ago we were talking about some guy who's neighbors dog kept coming into his yard. Many people said...call bylaw...call the police. WHAT...go talk to the neighbor first.

We were talking about calling for Lawyers...not the police.

But on that regard..I agree. Although I do find a difference between calling the police because of loud music...and going to court over it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

A guy sued ticketmaster once because he fell down the stairs at a stadium. I'd call that an example of frivolous use of the legal system. I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of people abusing the legal system for their own personal ends.

Ah...the infamous story about people sueing a company/person because something happened to them.

Can't argue with that...

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ah...the infamous story about people sueing a company/person because something happened to them.

Can't argue with that...

Sure you can... but it would be defending the 'sue the pants off of everyone in sight' attitude. There are people that when they get bumped from behind in their car come out screaming and clutching their necks and sue for 10's of 1000's when there's no real damage. People take advantage of the legal system a lot. Not every single issue taken to the legal system is morally is justified.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Sure you can... but it would be defending the 'sue the pants off of everyone in sight' attitude. There are people that when they get bumped from behind in their car come out screaming and clutching their necks and sue for 10's of 1000's when there's no real damage. People take advantage of the legal system a lot. Not every single issue taken to the legal system is morally is justified.

Like I said...can't argue with that.

People insert fingers into food at Wendy's...hoping to gain money from the result of a lawsuit.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

We were talking about calling for Lawyers...not the police.

But on that regard..I agree. Although I do find a difference between calling the police because of loud music...and going to court over it.

It was one example, and I stated in one of my first posts that I was talking about the entire justice system, not just lawyers.

But Looger is right when it comes to family law. To many times people just want to get revenge and in a lot of cases would sacrifice money to punish the other party.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

A guy sued ticketmaster once because he fell down the stairs at a stadium. I'd call that an example of frivolous use of the legal system. I'm sure there are hundreds of examples of people abusing the legal system for their own personal ends.

Are you under the impression that every time a lawyer is engaged it is because it is completely necessary and justified? Really? Every single time? Now I'll use the emoticons...

Or the lady that sued McD's because she spilt her coffee and it was to HOT.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Or the lady that sued McD's because she spilt her coffee and it was to HOT.

So you think McDonalds shouldn’t be held liable for continuing to serve coffee that is considerably hotter then other chains, so hot that it causes third degree burns, and in this case, third degree burns to a ladies genitals that required skin grafts. You think a company that had 700 prior instance of severe burns caused by hot coffee would turn down a temperature a bit. Or they knowingly except the risk of serving it that hot since they think the profit is greater, in which case they should have to pay up when people are severely burned.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Suave

So you think McDonalds shouldn’t be held liable for continuing to serve coffee that is considerably hotter then other chains, so hot that it causes third degree burns, and in this case, third degree burns to a ladies genitals that required skin grafts. You think a company that had 700 prior instance of severe burns caused by hot coffee would turn down a temperature a bit. Or they knowingly except the risk of serving it that hot since they think the profit is greater, in which case they should have to pay up when people are severely burned.

ITS COFFEE!!! IT IS SUPPOSE TO BE HOT!

COMMON SENSE!!!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Suave

So you think McDonalds shouldn’t be held liable for continuing to serve coffee that is considerably hotter then other chains, so hot that it causes third degree burns, and in this case, third degree burns to a ladies genitals that required skin grafts. You think a company that had 700 prior instance of severe burns caused by hot coffee would turn down a temperature a bit. Or they knowingly except the risk of serving it that hot since they think the profit is greater, in which case they should have to pay up when people are severely burned.

Serve it a bit warmer...and the company gets sued for not serving hot coffee. A win, win situation indeed.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Suave

So you think McDonalds shouldn’t be held liable for continuing to serve coffee that is considerably hotter then other chains, so hot that it causes third degree burns, and in this case, third degree burns to a ladies genitals that required skin grafts. You think a company that had 700 prior instance of severe burns caused by hot coffee would turn down a temperature a bit. Or they knowingly except the risk of serving it that hot since they think the profit is greater, in which case they should have to pay up when people are severely burned.

You can put as much spin on that as you like, but it's still a load of crap lawsuit.

Not a chance in hell McDonalds should be liable for serving hot coffee.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Azure

Serve it a bit warmer...and the company gets sued for not serving hot coffee. A win, win situation indeed.

Not sure how such a lawsuit would work. I don't know whether there are warranties on McDonald's coffees...

[Language]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Or the lady that sued McD's because she spilt her coffee and it was to HOT.

Would your opinon change if that extremely hot coffee (which btw, that specific mcdonalds restaurant was warned countless times, even by employees that the coffee was too hot) was being carried by this lady, and someone accidently bumped into her and all this coffee spilt onto the head of a 10 year old boy, causing skin grafts to be needed all over his head and upper body? I'm sure if that happened people wouldn't have much sympathy for Mcdonalds. Fact of the matter is, Mcdonalds was careless in making the coffee TOO hot and was held liable, it's pretty simple.

I thought the settlement was ridiculous at first too but then when I thought about it and took a business law class I understood more. If i remember, this was an older lady to begin with, but if she was younger, I'm pretty sure she would have been unable to have children anyway because of what happened.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by leonk19

Would your opinon change if that extremely hot coffee (which btw, that specific mcdonalds restaurant was warned countless times, even by employees that the coffee was too hot) was being carried by this lady, and someone accidently bumped into her and all this coffee spilt onto the head of a 10 year old boy, causing skin grafts to be needed all over his head and upper body? I'm sure if that happened people wouldn't have much sympathy for Mcdonalds. Fact of the matter is, Mcdonalds was careless in making the coffee TOO hot and was held liable, it's pretty simple.

I thought the settlement was ridiculous at first too but then when I thought about it and took a business law class I understood more. If i remember, this was an older lady to begin with, but if she was younger, I'm pretty sure she would have been unable to have children anyway because of what happened.

That didn't happen so no point in discussing what ifs. Coffee is hot.....tea is even hotter....it is not suppose to be placed between ones legs...do you think a label on the cup saying HOT would have prevented the incident? I think not.