We're being sued



  • @Rhywden said:

    @Anketam said:

    @serguey123 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    double cheeseburgers (vegetarian, of course).
    ?? How can a cheeseburger be vegetarian? Bread is not a vegetable, nor cheese, nor some of the additives and sauces
    Don't be mixing vegan and vegetarian.  vegans are actual vegetarians, vegetarians are vegan wanna'be.

    I'm not sure how you're baking bread, but ours over here is primarily made from flour and water. You don't need milk and you don't need animal fats to make bread. You also don't need yeast.

    Technically you don't need flour, either.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Are they any good? (I have tasted some soy related products and besides soy sauce they were really bad)

    Black bean burgers are much better.



  • @serguey123 said:

    I thought it would be more strict.

    I eat everything except things made directly from animals. It's actually harder than you think because many foods use animal fats or juices. Asian food is really bad because it frequently contains oyster sauce or fish sauce.

    @serguey123 said:

    Are they any good? (I have tasted some soy related products and besides soy sauce they were really bad)

    A lot of people seem to dislike them, although I'm not sure if it's legitimate distaste or just some kind of "I gotta show how much I love meat" thing. Some people like them or say they can't tell the difference. I prefer the taste of soy food to meat, but I know I'm in the minority on that one.



  • @Sarcarsm said:

    @Peraninth said:
    ... I'm also sure that by now this $35 lawsuit has cost our company at least several thousand dollars.
     

    Thus the problem with our current legal system. Anyone can bring a lawsuit like this, with minimal to no cost to themselves, costing the other party a larger sum of money than the initial cost (in this cast the $35). The only recourse that the company has is to (after they are found non-liable of course) counter-sue in hopes that they can win damages. The worst part is, that even if they company wins and gets all court costs, they are still likely out tens of thousands as the only person who is going to sue over $35 doesn't have any money anyway.

     That is TRWTF!

    I don't know... I live in Belgium, and I sometimes wish our legal system was like yours. We have great customer protection laws, but no way to enforce them. For example, the law says that for any online purchase, you have one week to cancel your purchase, return the purchased goods, and receive a full refund. Simple enough, right? Apparently not.

    A few years ago, a friend and I decided to go to a concert. A slight misunderstanding later, we had three tickets instead of two. No problem, I thought, and I sent a quick e-mail telling them I wanted to cancel one of my tickets. Mind you, we're talking about an e-ticket with barcode, the kind you have to print yourself. They send your ticket by e-mail, so it costs them nothing at all, and cancelling is a matter of removing the barcode from their valid barcode database (which they can, they do it when you try to sell your ticket on eBay and you don't make the barcode unreadable).

    They refuse and tell me about the fine print I "signed" by checking a checkbox. I tell them they can't just put "the laws don't apply for this purchase" in their fine print and that I want my money back. And then came the best reasoning ever to circumvent that law:
    The concert itself is actually free. All costs charged are for providing me the service of receiving an e-mail with my ticket from them. As I have already received said e-mail, I have enjoyed every service I bought from them, and there is no way they can still refund me.

    At that point I found someone who was willing to buy the ticket from me, so I decided to let it go. There is no way to sue here without it costing a lot more than what I paid for the ticket. But man, if this was America, I would have sued them, not because of the money, but because I hate it when large corporations think the law doesn't apply to them, just because they know customers don't have a way to get it enforced.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I eat everything except things made directly from animals.

    So I'm guessing cheese yes, eggs no, jello depends?



  • @briverymouse said:

    At that point I found someone who was willing to buy the ticket from me, so I decided to let it go. There is no way to sue here without it costing a lot more than what I paid for the ticket. But man, if this was America, I would have sued them, not because of the money, but because I hate it when large corporations think the law doesn't apply to them, just because they know customers don't have a way to get it enforced.

    The point of litigation is to provide remediation to someone who has been wronged, not to allow someone to harass other people because he apparently can't be bothered to learn how to count or take personal responsibility for his own actions. Anyway, you could sue here but you'd lose. In our saner states you'd have to pay all of their court costs and hopefully you'd be publicly flogged as an example to the other idiots.



  • @Zecc said:

    So I'm guessing cheese yes, eggs no, jello depends?

    Cheese: yes. Eggs: sometimes. (If they aren't fertilized they aren't an animal yet). Jello: never seen gelatin-free jello, but I haven't looked very hard.



  • @Zecc said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I eat everything except things made directly from animals.
    So I'm guessing cheese yes, eggs no, jello depends?

    Christ, stop paying attention to him. Threadjacking sustains him.

     



  • @Zylon said:

    Threadjacking sustains him.

    To be fair, I didn't threadjack this one, the foreign guy did. But by all means, let's discuss the exciting topic of.. $35 nuisance lawsuits... on a technical forum..



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @briverymouse said:
    At that point I found someone who was willing to buy the ticket from me, so I decided to let it go. There is no way to sue here without it costing a lot more than what I paid for the ticket. But man, if this was America, I would have sued them, not because of the money, but because I hate it when large corporations think the law doesn't apply to them, just because they know customers don't have a way to get it enforced.

    The point of litigation is to provide remediation to someone who has been wronged, not to allow someone to harass other people because he apparently can't be bothered to learn how to count or take personal responsibility for his own actions. Anyway, you could sue here but you'd lose. In our saner states you'd have to pay all of their court costs and hopefully you'd be publicly flogged as an example to the other idiots.



    Euhm, no. If I had bought this in a physical shop, where the law doesn't say anything about refunds, I'd have shrugged, told myself I need to be more careful when dealing with other people*, and try to sell the ticket for half the price or something. The point is that the law specifically says you can cancel online purchases, so I thought "well, today is my lucky day, I'll just cancel it" and they refused. That is the point of litigation, to make other people obey the law if they refuse to. Do I think that this law is a little overprotective? Sure. Does it exist? Yes, and as long as it exists, I expect people and companies to follow it when dealing with me.

    * I had bought a ticket for him, because he asked me to as "he couldn't
    purchase things online, they wouldn't accept his credit card". Turns out
    they did accept it and he didn't let me know.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Zylon said:
    Threadjacking sustains him.

    To be fair, I didn't threadjack this one, the foreign guy did. But by all means, let's discuss the exciting topic of.. $35 nuisance lawsuits... on a technical forum..

    Hi, my name is Peraninth and I approve this threadjacking.



  •  This is the best threadjack I've encountered in my entire life so far.



  • @briverymouse said:

    That is the point of litigation, to make other people obey the law if they refuse to.

    And when the laws are stupid that means litigation based on that law is stupid. I'm not disputing that you could sue them, I'm disputing the entire concept that a lawsuit is an appropriate response to you buying something and then changing your mind. It's that mindset that has made America such an unpleasant place to do business.

    @briverymouse said:

    Yes, and as long as it exists, I expect people and companies to follow it when dealing with me.

    I tend to question the validity of the law rather than merely its existence. Two hundred years ago I could have owned a human being if they had the right skin color, so I don't consider the law to be much of a moral compass.



  • @dhromed said:

     This is the best threadjack I've encountered in my entire life so far.

    Credit goes to serguey. I simply offered a solution to the OP's problem, along with a quoted price. serguey's the one who wanted to know more about the exciting world of.. not eating certain things.



  • @Peraninth said:

    Filed under: I dont get vegans at all, arent plants alive too

    Plants are alive but AFAIK they can't feel pain. I'm 50% vegetarian for moral reasons (why should I make a living being that can feel pain suffer when I don't have to?) and 50% because I legitimately think meat is gross. I do like leather, but I guess they don't kill cows solely for their skin so I'm not really adding to their pain. I grew up on a farm and I've slaughtered animals before. It's unpleasant but I'm not sure if it really influenced my decision. I don't really care if other people eat meat, although I guess I might prefer it if they didn't. But I'm not an evangelical vegetarian--I only mention it when it's absolutely necessary. Oh, and I don't understand people who are outraged by hunting. I tend to admire hunters for killing and cleaning their own food.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm vegetarian
     

    What? So you're a saladchewer on top of being a pudgy hobbit?

    You just keep losing points here, buddy.



  • I was going to quote a study saying that fish don't feel pain, but of course now there are studies that say they do.  Whether they have the brain capacity to feel pain, I guess we'll find out later...



  • @dhromed said:

    saladchewer

    Hate crime! We prefer the name "Anemic-Americans", thank you very much.

    @dhromed said:

    pudgy hobbit

    If you weren't Dutch I'd.. something-something..



  • @Sutherlands said:

    I was going to quote a study saying that fish don't feel pain, but of course now there are studies that say they do.  Whether they have the brain capacity to feel pain, I guess we'll find out later...

    It seems somewhat obvious that the "feel" pain: poke one with something sharp and it will struggle to get away. Now, the meaning of pain and how it relates to consciousness... I have no idea. It's entirely possible the pain animals feel is much different than how we perceive pain. On the one hand, we can rationalize pain which means we can comprehend that it is a transient state; to animals pain may seem eternal until it ends. On the other hand, pain might "mean" significantly less to them since they can't really understand it. However, it does seem pretty clear to me that animals do not enjoy being killed and that's a sentiment I can sympathize with.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I tend to question the validity of the law rather than merely its existence. Two hundred years ago I could have owned a human being if they had the right skin color, so I don't consider the law to be much of a moral compass.
     

    I question the validity of the law as well, but I will only disregard it when it's actually unfair. When a law is about a trivial detail like this, I expect others to just follow it. It's not like the company thinks the law is unfair. They just know that by breaking it they can make a quick buck out of someone else's mistake, because they know it's not worth the law suit.

    Not that this should have been an issue in the first place. Another time, a friend just randomly decided not to go to a concert, weeks after buying her ticket. She sent a nice e-mail to the ticket seller (a different one), and they refunded her without even asking for a reason. That's called customer service.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm vegetarian
     

    What? So you're a saladchewer on top of being a pudgy hobbit?

    He's just not tasted the right meat. Go, sort him out.

    @Sutherlands said:

    I was going to quote a study saying that fish don't feel pain, but of course now there are studies that say they do. 

    I read somewhere of a study that showed plants felt pain, but it transpired that the apparatus hooked up to the plant showed they reacted to stimuli in some way but couldn't determine whether it was pain or not. It definitely showed that they could sense someone talking/singing to them, but couldn't distinguish between a Shakespeare sonnet and Justin Bieber hell.

    Perhaps I envy plants in some way.

     



  • @serguey123 said:

    Ohh, I see, first time meeting one, I thought it would be more strict.
    Are they any good? (I have tasted some soy related products and besides
    soy sauce they were really bad)

    The ones that try to taste like meat are borderline inedible.  The veggie burgers that are made with mixed vegetables and don't try to mask their flavor are quite good.

     

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Zecc said:
    So I'm guessing cheese yes, eggs no, jello depends?

    Cheese: yes. Eggs: sometimes. (If they aren't fertilized they aren't an animal yet). Jello: never seen gelatin-free jello, but I haven't looked very hard.

     

    Look for kosher jello -- it can't contain the gelatin that's in normal jello, which is made from pig parts.  I'm not sure if they use gelatin rendered from cattle parts or some other sort of nasty chemicals, though.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I do like leather, but I guess they
    don't kill cows solely for their skin so I'm not really adding to their
    pain. I grew up on a farm and I've slaughtered animals before.


    IIRC, they raise different breeds of cattle for meat, dairy, and leather, but I could be wrong about that.  The meat from leather cows would presumably end up in fancy dog food or something.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    However, it does seem pretty clear to me that animals do not enjoy being killed and that's a sentiment I can sympathize with.
     

    I suppose this raises the question of whether or not they understand forthcoming death in the way we do.

    Studies have shown that there is a difference in taste and texture between terrified animals and those slaughtered quickly (hence the bolt-gun to the brain approach) - terrified animals have tense flesh and a chemical imbalance at the point of death (which is why roadkill tastes unpleasant).

    Some animals live out a relatively luxurious existence for the period of their life prior to being quickly and painlessly slaughtered, their meat fetching a premium available only to the more upmarket places. Given a choice of a rich and fulfilled brief life versus a longer one of lower care and quality, it's debatable which choice they would take were they given the options.



  • @briverymouse said:

    The concert itself is actually free. All costs charged are for providing me the service of receiving an e-mail with my ticket from them. As I have already received said e-mail, I have enjoyed every service I bought from them, and there is no way they can still refund me.

    This sounds suspiciously similar to the rationale a friend of mine uses for her "coupon-clipping" business - "I don't actually SELL the coupons; I just charge money for the service of gathering them and bringing them to you!"



  • @sprained said:

    The ones that try to taste like meat are borderline inedible.

    shrug I like 'em.

    @sprained said:

    Look for kosher jello -- it can't contain the gelatin that's in normal jello, which is made from pig parts.  I'm not sure if they use gelatin rendered from cattle parts or some other sort of nasty chemicals, though.

    Kosher gelatin is usually made from cow sinews and what-not. There's probably some vegan gelatin out there made from pectin but I haven't cared enough to look.

    @sprained said:

    IIRC, they raise different breeds of cattle for meat, dairy, and leather, but I could be wrong about that.

    Dairy: yes. But most leather comes from already-used cows (meat cows, old dairy cows, etc..)



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @serguey123 said:
    @morbiuswilters said:
    double cheeseburgers (vegetarian, of course).

    ?? How can a cheeseburger be vegetarian? Bread is not a vegetable, nor cheese, nor some of the additives and sauces

    Vegetarian means "without meat". A vegetarian cheeseburger would be one made with soy instead of beef.

     

    Where did you get that feeling that the thing they put in a hamburger deserve the term "meat"? :)



  • @tchize said:

    Where did you get that feeling that the thing they put in a hamburger deserve the term "meat"? :)
     

    Definitely there is meat in it, but that term is quite broad. Which animal, which part of that animal, what percentage is non-meat, how much fat, etc? :)




  • @serguey123 said:

    How can a cheeseburger be vegetarian?
     

    It's made from Cheese, which is not a meat.

    Beefburgers are made from beef, hamburgers from ham - both are meat.

    Simples!



  • It ain't meat, Dorothy

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @sprained said:
    The ones that try to taste like meat are borderline inedible.

    shrug I like 'em.

    That's probably because you're not comparing them to the real thing meat product, so to us cannibals carnivores they taste "false".

    I like veggie stuff that's not trying to be a meat substitute -  because invariably it'll fall short on comparison. Veg chilli, roasted veg and tomato sauce on pasta - all grand. Veg bacon? Missus had some and she quite liked it, but it tasted like strips of cardboard and ketchup when I took a bite of hers.

    Corollary to all this: Quorn mince. We often make a shepherd's pie using this as imitation beef mince, and provided I dump a sizeable amount of gravy on mine I'm happy noshing it.

    I tried Quorn pieces as chicken substitute in a stir-fry but they seemed tasteless: you need to marinate them first (few hours in soy sauce) and even then they began to fall apart... the final product tasted like crumbly things dipped in chow-mein stir-fry sauce. I ended up leaving them to one side and sticking to the veg.

    Not tried Quorn steaks (the chicken breast lookalikes) but the mince bits are - to me - the only acceptable meat-like substitute that can be drowned in other flavours and palatable to a meat-muncher.



  • @Cassidy said:

    It's made from Cheese, which is not a meat.

    But most often (at least here in the Netherlands) there's rennet in it...

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm not disputing that you could sue them, I'm disputing the entire concept that a lawsuit is an appropriate response to you buying something and then changing your mind. It's that mindset that has made America such an unpleasant place to do business.

    It's meant as a means against door-to-door salesmen who foist useless crap onto unsuspecting victims without giving them a chance to test the product. They've extended this to online purchases (software, built to order and services excluded) because you can't test a JPG for fitness for a particular task.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Quorn mince.
     

    I was about to mention this.

    My flatmate made a thing with quorn once and it was delicious. Just don't think it's meat. Because obviously, it's not meat.

    @Cassidy said:

    the final product tasted like crumbly things dipped in chow-mein stir-fry sauce.

    I thought the texture was rather similar to baked/scrambled egg, as used in common asian rice dishes.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Plants are alive but AFAIK they can't feel pain.

    (Ignoring the fact that this is the Daily Mail, and ignoring the digs at our Idiot Prince™....)http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2096302/Prince-Charles-right-plants-really-communicate-another.html

    One cabbage plant had a leaf cut off with scissors and started emitting a gas – methyl jasmonate – thereby ‘telling’ its neighbours there may be trouble ahead.

    Two nearby cabbage plants, which had not been touched, received the message they should protect themselves. They did this by producing toxic chemicals on the leaves to fend off predators such as caterpillars.


  • @dhromed said:

    I thought the texture was rather similar to baked/scrambled egg, as used in common asian rice dishes.

    Aha, that was what I was thinking of. That and dried liver which has a crumbly texture if not cooked right.

    @PJH said:

    there may be trouble ahead

    I've got that tune in my head now, you bastid.

     



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    However, it does seem pretty clear to me that animals do not enjoy being killed and that's a sentiment I can sympathize with.
     

    I suppose this raises the question of whether or not they understand forthcoming death in the way we do.

    Studies have shown that there is a difference in taste and texture between terrified animals and those slaughtered quickly (hence the bolt-gun to the brain approach) - terrified animals have tense flesh and a chemical imbalance at the point of death (which is why roadkill tastes unpleasant).

    Some animals live out a relatively luxurious existence for the period of their life prior to being quickly and painlessly slaughtered, their meat fetching a premium available only to the more upmarket places. Given a choice of a rich and fulfilled brief life versus a longer one of lower care and quality, it's debatable which choice they would take were they given the options.

    This can also happen when hunting.  If the shot does not instantly kill the animal and they run, the adrenaline release alters the taste of the meat making it not taste as good.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    I'll make the problem go away permanently for $34 and two double cheeseburgers (vegetarian, of course).

     

    Happy Kitchen Candy Hamburgers ~ ハッピーキチンハンバーガー

     May even  be vegan; who knows



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Credit goes to serguey

    *Bows

    -Thank you, thank you, you are too kind

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I'm 50% vegetarian for moral reasons (why should I make a living being that can feel pain suffer when I don't have to?)

    I think we are working on eliminating that reason by creating "lobotomized" cattle so now you can focus on the other 50%.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    I tend to admire hunters for killing and cleaning their own food.

    Not all hunters are created equal



  • @ekolis said:

    @briverymouse said:
    The concert itself is actually free. All costs charged are for providing me the service of receiving an e-mail with my ticket from them. As I have already received said e-mail, I have enjoyed every service I bought from them, and there is no way they can still refund me.
    This sounds suspiciously similar to the rationale a friend of mine uses for her "coupon-clipping" business - "I don't actually SELL the coupons; I just charge money for the service of gathering them and bringing them to you!"

    But there is a difference here, she is taking her actual time to clip them out, so yes it is the service you are paying for.  You can take your own time to get the same coupons for free.  A portion of what you pay her is not going to the manufacturers of said coupons or products.

    As for the ticket thing, it took no ones time but a computer, and I woudl like to know how they say the concert is free, can you go without a ticket?  If not, then you are not just paying for the service of getting a ticket, which you apparently don't need, this is akin to them admitting to ripping you off.  I bet a portion of the proceeds go to the concert promoters, artist etc.  It is not a fee to get the ticket.



  • @KattMan said:

    As for the ticket thing, it took no ones time but a computer, and I woudl like to know how they say the concert is free, can you go without a ticket?  If not, then you are not just paying for the service of getting a ticket, which you apparently don't need, this is akin to them admitting to ripping you off.  I bet a portion of the proceeds go to the concert promoters, artist etc.  It is not a fee to get the ticket.

    What about the hundreds of developer hours it took to build the ticketing system? You can get them dirt cheap from Hyberiabad, but certainly not free.



  • @pkmnfrk said:

    What about the hundreds of developer hours it took to build the ticketing system? You can get them dirt cheap from Hyberiabad, but certainly not free.

    All web shops have to be developed first, and physical shops are even more expensive. While obviously that investment is paid for by customers when they buy stuff, only ticket vendors decided that the service of selling you a ticket, and not the service of providing you with the concert, is what you actually purchased. No other web shop will say: "We had to develop this web shop software, so that's what you paid for. The service we provided to you, sending you a parcel with a vacuum cleaner, has already been completed. The fact that this vacuum cleaner is defective has nothing to do with your purchase, so sadly, we can't refund you."

     



  • @pnieuwkamp said:

    It's meant as a means against door-to-door salesmen who foist useless crap onto unsuspecting victims without giving them a chance to test the product. They've extended this to online purchases (software, built to order and services excluded) because you can't test a JPG for fitness for a particular task.

    I take it you also need someone to remind you to wear a jacket when it is cold out, so you don't catch a cold. There should probably be some kind of law about that.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    I take it you also need someone to remind you to wear a jacket when it is cold out, so you don't catch a cold. There should probably be some kind of law about that.

    That law was recently abolished, and look at the problems it caused.



  • @Anketam said:

     


     



  • @Peraninth said:

    I just found out we're getting sued.  A customer who paid for a service on one of our websites wants his money back.  He called and asked for a refund and was told something along the lines of "We're sorry but the fee says it was not refundable right next to where you paid".  He is sueing us for $35.  Fortunately we're a pretty big company with full time lawyers on the payroll.  Unfortunately, now that the lawyers are involved all kinds of crazy is happening.  We've been told we need to change the wording on the site to say "non refundable" instead of "not refundable". I'm sure there is a really important difference there that I'm just not smart enough to understand.  I'm also sure that by now this $35 lawsuit has cost our company at least several thousand dollars.

     About 10 years ago, I was involved in a lawsuit (I was neither the plantiff nor the defendant, merely a witness) that hinged on the difference between "will" and "shall" in a contract, it was for way more than $35 [about 10K time more]



  • @TheCPUWizard said:

    difference between "will" and "shall" in a contract
     

    Which is?



  • @WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot said:

    @Anketam said:

     


     

    Wow, I do not know what to say.



  • @mrsparkyman said:

    @TheCPUWizard said:
    difference between "will" and "shall" in a contract
     Which is?

    The contention was that there is an element of requirement associated with "shall" that does not exist with "will". The surrounding context came into play as well. The jist of it was that provided the the capability eventually existed or even remained a potential/viable possibility that there was no violation per se of a satement indicating that "X will Y" as there is was not any timeframe specified by the enclosing context. On the other hand, "shall" was presented as "will be required to" and therefore necessitated specific plans to actually realize (i.e. potential possibility was not sufficient).

    Ever since then, I have been sensitive to this wording, and have noticed that most established contracts [expecially financial load documents from a number of transactions] almost invariable use the term "shall". In the case I was refering to, the resolution was that the defendent provided the required functionallity, which was deemed to meet the "will" clause, and the Plantiff was denied any damage claims even though the capability was finally implemented over a year after the point in time where they actually needed it for their business requirements...


Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.