Woman suing Starbucks, after discovering Ice in her Iced Coffee

[Anonymous]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

The only thing that is entrenched here is the entrenched abuse of our legal system that has been steadily escalating for the last 40 years.

It is pretty silly..



It would never happen in Taiwan.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

The only thing that is entrenched here is the entrenched abuse of our legal system that has been steadily escalating for the last 40 years.

That is undeniable.

[Anonymous]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

The only thing that is entrenched here is the entrenched abuse of our legal system that has been steadily escalating for the last 40 years.

That is undeniable.

The reason I'm still in this conversation with you, RW, is because you do see this...despite what a more trollish person than I would describe as "your fondness for Nanny Goobermint."  It is the recent rise of Nanny Goobermint that is responsible for public acceptance of this sort of lawsuit as having merit, and this deplorable cultural shift is due largely to the rise of Nanny Goobermint itself.  It's been a cultural shift that has driven the escalating and continuing "abuses" of the legal system.



I hope we might have time to carry this further, but the pressures of the day are overwhelming me for now.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

The only thing that is entrenched here is the entrenched abuse of our legal system that has been steadily escalating for the last 40 years.

That is undeniable.

The reason I'm still in this conversation with you, RW, is because you do see this...despite what a more trollish person than I would describe as "your fondness for Nanny Goobermint."  It is the recent rise of Nanny Goobermint that is responsible for public acceptance of this sort of lawsuit as having merit, and this deplorable cultural shift is due largely to the rise of Nanny Goobermint itself.  It's been a cultural shift that has driven the escalating and continuing "abuses" of the legal system.



I hope we might have time to carry this further, but the pressures of the day are overwhelming me for now.

I'm sure this thread isn't going anywhere.



I don't see this as a nanny state issue at all so much as it's not legal to scam and rip people off, nor should it be.  What will be determined by the court is whether Starbucks is ripping people off or not.



I agree this shouldn't be a matter for the courts. I think it would be better handled by a consumer protection tribunal.  There are really no damages but a call for some kind of change.



Your court system is better left to putting weed smokers in jail for an obscene number of years.  :001_rolleyes:

[Anonymous]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

[Renee]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

I don't see that as a comparable.  I see it as you buy a 3 sq. ft. container but can only use 2 sq.ft or it because the rest has space taken up by fucking ice.



In the case of a coffee, I'm not buying a cup. I'm buying a DRINK. (Or not buying a drink as it were because Starbucks has gross, overpriced coffee.)

[Renee]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

I don't see that as a comparable.  I see it as you buy a 3 sq. ft. container but can only use 2 sq.ft or it because the rest has space taken up by fucking ice.



In the case of a coffee, I'm not buying a cup. I'm buying a DRINK. (Or not buying a drink as it were because Starbucks has gross, overpriced coffee.)

In reality you are buying a cup that holds 10 ounces of something. In this case it's liquid. But if you add additional displacement to the liquid, that cup no longer holds 10 ounces of liquid.  It's the same with a shipping container. The container may hold 3 square feet of something but what that something is may not be what you are shipping.



Unfortunately no where does Starbucks say you get 10 ounces of liquid UNLESS you specify how the cup is to be filled. What it lists and tells the consumer is cup size, 10, 16, 24 ounces etc. This is where the fast food practice of just giving you an empty cup in a size of your choosing has merit. That way you the consumer are completely responsible for how you fill it and this ridiculous argument is avoided.

[Anonymous]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Americans are so lucky to live in a country where the power and money of the state will be used against beverage retailers because someone buying a ten ounce iced drink did not know that part of the cup content included ice.

 

[Anonymous]

I hope this stupid woman is sent a bill for any costs incurred after this is tossed out. Better yet, I hope it sends a message to other fools of her ilk.

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Okay, let's look at it this way....if you purchase a shipping container (cardboard box) etc. Let's say that box is a box that hold 3 square feet of shit. BUT you are shipping something that only takes up 2 square feet the other space gets taken up by packing material.....



Did you get ripped off when you bought the 3 square foot box?

I don't see that as a comparable.  I see it as you buy a 3 sq. ft. container but can only use 2 sq.ft or it because the rest has space taken up by fucking ice.



In the case of a coffee, I'm not buying a cup. I'm buying a DRINK. (Or not buying a drink as it were because Starbucks has gross, overpriced coffee.)

In reality you are buying a cup that holds 10 ounces of something. In this case it's liquid. But if you add additional displacement to the liquid, that cup no longer holds 10 ounces of liquid.  It's the same with a shipping container. The container may hold 3 square feet of something but what that something is may not be what you are shipping.



Unfortunately no where does Starbucks say you get 10 ounces of liquid UNLESS you specify how the cup is to be filled. What it lists and tells the consumer is cup size, 10, 16, 24 ounces etc. This is where the fast food practice of just giving you an empty cup in a size of your choosing has merit. That way you the consumer are completely responsible for how you fill it and this ridiculous argument is avoided.

That's not entirely true.  Starbucks states on it's website how much actual "drink" their cups hold.  It states things like "All suggestions based on a Tall serving (12 fl oz / 355 ml)."

[RW]

All I'm doing is presenting the other side of the legal coin for the purposes of discussion.  There is a legal principle at play here which is entrenched in consumer protection.

Please put this legal principle into words, if you will.



It troubles me to hear people speak of anything that is "entrenched" in consumer protection, because consumer protection is quite a new addition to jurisprudence and very little of consumer protection is really what I consider settled law.



Why not?  Because we are playing here in the valley between Roman law and English law, or if you prefer...civil law vs. common law.  Slippery slopes abound.

Slippery slope my ass.  Truth has been a foundation in law for ages and the basis of consumer protection beyond dealing with contractual issues, is deception.  Business cannot deceive people for gain.  The legal question is whether or not Starbucks is deceiving customers using excessive ice in drinks to provide less drinkable product without disclosing this fact.



As I said, in other countries, Canada included, there are channels other than the lawsuits to investigate these issues.

I highly doubt ten ounce cups holding some ice instead of ten ounces of liquid was what consumer protection legislation had in mind.

I think it did actually.  It's meant to protect from practises that mislead the consumer.  If that comes in the form of ice, so be it.

Americans are so lucky to live in a country where the power and money of the state will be used against beverage retailers because someone buying a ten ounce iced drink did not know that part of the cup content included ice.

 

That's actually not what this case is about at all.  It's about a consumer being aware that almost half the "drink" is ice and if the consumer knew, would he/she still purchase said drink.

[RW]

I hope this stupid woman is sent a bill for any costs incurred after this is tossed out. Better yet, I hope it sends a message to other fools of her ilk.

She will have to pay legal fees unless they are on a contingency.