Steve Wertz > wrote in
:

> A couple weeks ago somebody mentioned that their store-bought
> avocado/guacamole dip had little or no avocado in it.
>
> Here's your chance to fatten the wallets of the class-action
> lawyers, while getting a free pint of (50% or more) guacamole.


Steve,

You're such a good contributor and now this??? Ratcheting you down one
rung.

"50% or more"??? Get outta town! YA BUM!!! <G>

Andy

Steve Wertz > wrote in
:

> I suppose that if this is ever resolved in the courts, the legal
> requirements for labeling will be something like a "preponderance
> of avocado", or "contains avocado beyond a reasonable doubt".


Can't have nutrition labels claiming products as -20% nutritious, can we?

Andy

"Andy" <q> wrote in message ...
> Steve Wertz > wrote in
> :
>
>> I suppose that if this is ever resolved in the courts, the legal
>> requirements for labeling will be something like a "preponderance
>> of avocado", or "contains avocado beyond a reasonable doubt".
>
>
> Can't have nutrition labels claiming products as -20% nutritious, can we?
>
> Andy

"This product will negate anything healthy you've eaten in the past 7 days"

"Steve Wertz" > wrote

> I don't think the lawsuit will make it very far except in the
> cases where the product contains no avocado, but is represented as
> such.

How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.

nancy

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Wertz" > wrote
>
>> I don't think the lawsuit will make it very far except in the
>> cases where the product contains no avocado, but is represented as
>> such.
>
> How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
> want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.
>
> nancy
>

Well, browse these newsgroups long enough and you find that many people are
deathly afraid of picking up the phone and calling the toll free number on a
package. Jeez...in alt.home.repair, there's a guy who just bought a dining
room table, and he wants to apply a second finish to it to protect it. He's
asking total strangers what kind of finish it has now, from the factory, and
what substance could be applied without ruining it. He's got the
manufacturer's name and their web address, but he has yet to pick up the
phone and call them.

Meanwhile, I e-mailed Hormel two weeks ago and told them that their cold cut
packages required a friggin hacksaw to open. They sent me $8.00 worth of
coupons.

Nancy Young wrote:
> "Steve Wertz" > wrote
>
>> I don't think the lawsuit will make it very far except in the
>> cases where the product contains no avocado, but is represented as
>> such.
>
> How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
> want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.
>
> nancy
>
>


The lawyers should receive their fee in the form of $2.00 off coupons;
just like what the class participants will likely get if the case is not
thrown out before they settle.

Bob

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

> Meanwhile, I e-mailed Hormel two weeks ago and told them that their cold cut
> packages required a friggin hacksaw to open. They sent me $8.00 worth of
> coupons.
>
>


....for a hacksaw. ;-)

Bob

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in
:

>
> "Andy" <q> wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Wertz > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> I suppose that if this is ever resolved in the courts, the legal
>>> requirements for labeling will be something like a "preponderance
>>> of avocado", or "contains avocado beyond a reasonable doubt".
>>
>>
>> Can't have nutrition labels claiming products as -20% nutritious, can
>> we?
>>
>> Andy
>
> "This product will negate anything healthy you've eaten in the past 7
> days"


Joe,

Right. Replacing the "New and Improved"/"Low fat" (ad nauseam) front
starburst labels.

Andy

"JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote

> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
>> want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.

> Well, browse these newsgroups long enough and you find that many people
> are deathly afraid of picking up the phone and calling the toll free
> number on a package. Jeez...in alt.home.repair, there's a guy who just
> bought a dining room table, and he wants to apply a second finish to it to
> protect it. He's asking total strangers what kind of finish it has now,
> from the factory, and what substance could be applied without ruining it.
> He's got the manufacturer's name and their web address, but he has yet to
> pick up the phone and call them.

Oh for pete's sake, don't screw with the table finish. If you have
to, you need to call.

> Meanwhile, I e-mailed Hormel two weeks ago and told them that their cold
> cut packages required a friggin hacksaw to open. They sent me $8.00 worth
> of coupons.

Isn't that a hassle? I had the same problem with some salami
I bought from them. I actually had to cut the salami in order to
get to it, the whole package was that tightly sealed.

Anyway, I'm not big on calling people either, so I understand, but
I would just not buy that brand again. Live and learn, no need to
make a huge hassle out of it.

nancy

"zxcvbob" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
>> want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.

> The lawyers should receive their fee in the form of $2.00 off coupons;
> just like what the class participants will likely get if the case is not
> thrown out before they settle.

(laugh!!) Good one, that's funny.

nancy

"Steve Wertz" > wrote

> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:08:42 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

>> How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
>> want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.
>
> 100,000 people x $3.19 and figure the lawyer gets 70% of the
> settlement.

I understand in total, it would be some money. I mean each
person, what damage could they claim that warrants more than
the price of the product back? Pain and suffering? Mental
anguish? What, their doctor had them on an all-avocado diet
and their health has been irrevocably harmed?

No harm came to them to sue *for* is what I'm getting at.

> Once they get a few people "signed on", he'll approach the
> manufacturers and they'll give him come pocket change to go away.

No doubt.

nancy

Steve Wertz wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 16:08:42 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>
>>"Steve Wertz" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>I don't think the lawsuit will make it very far except in the
>>>cases where the product contains no avocado, but is represented as
>>>such.
>>
>>How much damage could people *possibly* claim? What, they
>>want their $3.19 back? Geez. Hardly need a lawyer for that.
>
>
> 100,000 people x $3.19 and figure the lawyer gets 70% of the
> settlement.
>
> Once they get a few people "signed on", he'll approach the
> manufacturers and they'll give him come pocket change to go away.
>
> -sw

Sounds about right. I was a member of a class a few years ago. It was
something about long distance. Dewey, Cheatum & Howe graciously agreed
to accept $13.x Million for their work. Members of the class got a $5.00
phone card with a per minute cost that was close to $2.00

George > wrote in
:

> Sounds about right. I was a member of a class a few years ago. It was
> something about long distance. Dewey, Cheatum & Howe graciously agreed
> to accept $13.x Million for their work. Members of the class got a
$5.00
> phone card with a per minute cost that was close to $2.00


OH, a wiseguy huh? Why I oughtta...

Andy
The 4th stooge. (Well, I lived in the house that Moe built, if that
counts!? Just up the street from Jimmy Durante's place.)

"Goodnight Mrs. Callabash, Wherever You Are”
--JD