this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
145 points (100.0% liked)

Weird News - Things that make you go 'hmmm'

973 readers
188 users here now

Rules:

  1. News must be from a reliable source. No tabloids or sensationalism, please.

  2. Try to keep it safe for work. Contact a moderator before posting if you have any doubts.

  3. Titles of articles must remain unchanged; however extraneous information like "Watch:" or "Look:" can be removed. Titles with trailing, non-relevant information can also be edited so long as the headline's intent remains intact.

  4. Be nice. If you've got nothing positive to say, don't say it.

Violators will be banned at mod's discretion.

Communities We Like:

-Not the Onion

-And finally...

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree with the overall idea, but this wasn't one judge it was the majority (4-3).

Even when all parties do the best we can reasonably expect on occasion a bone will slip through. But when that happens and someone suffers injury because of it they deserve restitution if they specifically ordered a boneless product.

The court didn't look at the breach of warranty claim. Which was probably the best argument in this case.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You again seem to be ignoring the fact it wasn't really a bone fragment. It was an inch and a half long bone piece. There are entire bone-in wings that size. That's not something anyone would expect in a boneless wing.

Is there a reason you seem to be intentionally ignoring that detail?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Again? This is the first I've replied to you. I think you misunderstood my position.

My only issue was with you claiming it was one judge not four.