Monday, May 2, 2016

Opuscula

LU'DI'CROUS


 

ARE WE NUTS?

If the world isn't laughing at Americans, it ought to be.

The WWW Is awash with headlines similar to the one from the Huffington Post that reads: Woman Files $5 Million Lawsuit Against Starbucks For Putting Too Much Ice In Her Drinks

You've GOT to be kidding.

I am not a fan of Starbucks; I don't like their coffee and all their drinks seem overpriced. (Maybe I just don't get out enough.)

IF I ordered a drink with ice in it and if I felt there was too much ice, I would complain - loudly if necessary - until some of the ice was replaced with whatever drink I ordered.

But SUE?

For US$5 MILLION?

Over too much ICE?

I am reasonably certain the plaintiff has no expectation of winning more than whatever she paid for the over-iced drink.

In my opinion, unless a judge has a weird sense of humor, the case should be tossed out as being "frivolous," and all costs associated with the suit should be paid by the plaintiff.

I don't like ice in my whiskey and on occasion when my glass contained an ice cube, I sent it back. No big deal.

Coffee luke warm? Send it back for a new cup. No big deal.

I have seen people return glasses filled with ice and a soft drink for a glass with the soft drink but no ice. I've never seen a server object.

I don't doubt that the plaintiff has a point - but not a case - that the ice displaced some of the drink she ordered, but she seems a bit quick to find a hungry (for fame if not fortune) barrister (not barista) to file a claim against an international business.
AS FAR AS STARBUCKS is concerned, "Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any 'iced' beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it," company spokeswoman Jamie Riley said.

There is only one word for this suit: LU'DI'CROUS.


No comments: