From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Sun Aug 04 2002 - 12:04:38 MDT
Charles Hixson wrote:
>>Here are some google results on the coffee case...
>>
>I wasn't there either, but judging by the newspaper stories circulating at the
>time, the award was partially justified, and partially punitive. But the
>case *sounds* so silly, that people keep picking it up as an example of a bad
>judgement...
>
An important aspect of the McDonald's coffee case is
to identify who was the *real* winner. It was definitely
McDonalds. So they had to pay out a couple million
dollars in damages, perhaps as much in legal fees, so
what is that? USD4E6? Hell that wouldn't cover the
cost of a half minute superbowl ad. McDonalds had
their name splashed on the headlines repeatedly, in
connection with something that is hard to find: a good
hot cup of coffee, just the way I like it. Too hot to drink.
If it isn't too hot to drink, I dont want to drink it. I tried
McDonalds coffee after the case was publicized and
found I like it far better than the tepid swill they serve
at Starbucks. Cheaper too. The case created great
sympathy in the minds of the proletariat for McDonalds.
Hey, it worked on me.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:53 MST