If anyone thinks this sounds frivolous just remember that we have to keep tabs on these corporations. Chipotle walked backwards after people started smelling the bullshit and quit going
Subway has previously made headlines in legal news because their footlongs were under a foot long, and because their 100% chicken was half soy. If anything, they deserve some extra scrutiny.
Subway has constant contamination outbreaks causing waves of food poisoning like every year. They killed someone in the UK. McDonald’s literally just killed someone with bad quarter pounders.
I got food poisoning from subway once and have never had it since. Being concerned about whether it looks like the advertisement is gone, we’re back to having to be concerned about whether you could die from eating something. Isn’t it nice, I feel far more connected to the traditional ways before germ theory.
They killed someone in the UK. McDonald’s literally just killed someone with bad quarter pounders.
To add context, the CDC announced the cause to be the yellow onions [1] in the quarter pounders; McDonalds stopped serving onions in their quarter pounders and stopped sourcing onions from that supplier facility “indefinitely” (Taylor Farms in Colorado Springs) [2].
Subway has the lowest cost to enter a franchise, so it attracts a lot of people that can’t really afford a better brand. So everything goes to the lowest bidder, so everything is shit.
At the far opposite end of that scale is Chik-Fil-A, which is the hardest to get into and has much stricter standards about everything, and even treats their employees comparatively well for a fast food joint. They just also support evangelical Christian anti-LGBT stuff, which is the biggest complaint against them.
I did a paper on that in uni and was wondering why the hell Pepsi did not lose. It was a technicality but I don’t think they would win again in this day and age. The deciding factor was that a commercial was supposed to be wild and funny and that no reasonable person would believe they could win a harrier jet.
I did a paper on that in uni and was wondering why the hell Pepsi did not lose. It was a technicality but I don’t think they would win again in this day and age.
You’re way off on this. It wasn’t a close case back then, and since then the law has since shifted considerably towards Pepsi on this (advertising is very rarely construed as an actual offer in the contractual sense), so that it would be an even more lopsided win for Pepsi today.
Well I’m actually sitting at a computer right now so I might as well provide citations in support of what I was saying.
It wasn’t a close case back then
Here’s the judicial ruling. Note that the plaintiff lost on three independent issues, each of which was enough by itself for Pepsi to win:
Advertisements are almost never binding offers, and this ad didn’t fall within the requirements to be a binding offer. In fact, even order forms and pricing lists/catalogs printed by the merchant aren’t binding offers by the merchant to sell the items on the list at the listed price, and must be affirmatively accepted by the merchant in order to form a binding contract.
No reasonable person would understand this joke as an offer, even if it weren’t an advertisement, so even if analyzed outside of the advertising context Pepsi would still win.
There’s no written contract, and contracts for the sale of physical goods worth over $500 require a written contract. The actual written materials in the points program all indicated that the only items available are those within the points catalog, and there was no Harrier jet in the actual printed catalog.
Then, on appeal, three other appellate judges unanimously ruled that the district court got it exactly right.
If anyone thinks this sounds frivolous just remember that we have to keep tabs on these corporations. Chipotle walked backwards after people started smelling the bullshit and quit going
Subway has previously made headlines in legal news because their footlongs were under a foot long, and because their 100% chicken was half soy. If anything, they deserve some extra scrutiny.
Love to see this
Subway has constant contamination outbreaks causing waves of food poisoning like every year. They killed someone in the UK. McDonald’s literally just killed someone with bad quarter pounders.
I got food poisoning from subway once and have never had it since. Being concerned about whether it looks like the advertisement is gone, we’re back to having to be concerned about whether you could die from eating something. Isn’t it nice, I feel far more connected to the traditional ways before germ theory.
To add context, the CDC announced the cause to be the yellow onions [1] in the quarter pounders; McDonalds stopped serving onions in their quarter pounders and stopped sourcing onions from that supplier facility “indefinitely” (Taylor Farms in Colorado Springs) [2].
(Edit: grammar)
Subway has the lowest cost to enter a franchise, so it attracts a lot of people that can’t really afford a better brand. So everything goes to the lowest bidder, so everything is shit.
At the far opposite end of that scale is Chik-Fil-A, which is the hardest to get into and has much stricter standards about everything, and even treats their employees comparatively well for a fast food joint. They just also support evangelical Christian anti-LGBT stuff, which is the biggest complaint against them.
Yea it’s a deal breaker for me
Are health inspections on a state level? I think they are.
In California the rules seem different in every county, or at least the rating systems. (I’m no expert I just eat out sometimes.)
Wait, what did Chipotle walk back? Prices? I haven’t gone there in at least a year.
Their CEO is all about larger portions after them trying to go the other way to the point that it turned people off
Oh is it actually a burrito now? Last time I went hey gave me something not even half the size I would have received in 2015 so I stopped going.
LIKE THE PEPSI JET LAWSUIT THAT ENDED UP IN FAVOR OF PEPSI
That was an awesome documentary (I forgot the name) but yeah Pepsi is underhanded and that was fucked up, countersuing and picking a favorable judge
I did a paper on that in uni and was wondering why the hell Pepsi did not lose. It was a technicality but I don’t think they would win again in this day and age. The deciding factor was that a commercial was supposed to be wild and funny and that no reasonable person would believe they could win a harrier jet.
Liquid Death had their own giveaway and made shots at Pepsi (sorry, SLAMMED) about the jet.
You’re way off on this. It wasn’t a close case back then, and since then the law has since shifted considerably towards Pepsi on this (advertising is very rarely construed as an actual offer in the contractual sense), so that it would be an even more lopsided win for Pepsi today.
Well that’s just silly from the opinion of a random numbered citizen.
Well I’m actually sitting at a computer right now so I might as well provide citations in support of what I was saying.
Here’s the judicial ruling. Note that the plaintiff lost on three independent issues, each of which was enough by itself for Pepsi to win:
Then, on appeal, three other appellate judges unanimously ruled that the district court got it exactly right.