Dell sued for "bait and switch" and false promises

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Dell is involved in a class action suit for
"bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
switched parts and charged her for the more
expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
for which no one qualifies and then charges
ridiculously high interest rates.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/

http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
"buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
charlatans.

--

Rich/rerat

(RRR News) <message rule>
<<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>



"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
Dell is involved in a class action suit for
"bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
switched parts and charged her for the more
expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
for which no one qualifies and then charges
ridiculously high interest rates.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/

http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Believe it or not there are companies that go over the line and need to be
hit with a stick called a law suit. It seems the fear of law suits is the
only thing that keeps some of these crooked companies in line. The
government sure doesn't have the resources or desire to pursue them so it's
left to the private sector to protect themselves. Lawyers are bounty
hunters of sorts. BTW, I hate lawyers but there are times that they are
useful. Some are sleazebags but that can be said of most professions.
There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.

"RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
> "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
> tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
> charlatans.
>
> --
>
> Rich/rerat
>
> (RRR News) <message rule>
> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
>
>
>
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> Dell is involved in a class action suit for
> "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
> switched parts and charged her for the more
> expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
> for which no one qualifies and then charges
> ridiculously high interest rates.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
>
> http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Nascar12" wrote:
> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.


I agree.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

i agree that the buyer probably didn't read the credit terms to find
themselves with an unexpected rate... i always see that "for qualified
customers" in all of their advertisements that probably releases them of any
wrong doing... but i also believe in the court systems so let it take its
course and see what happens. the only tort reform that i think should be
done is to cap fees that lawyers are allowed to extract for class action
suits. i feel that there is a valuable public service that comes from class
actions suits which is to keep companies on the straight and narrow so that
they avoid such actions... but from a monetary perspective the only real
winners from class actions are the lawyers. i remember once receiving a
fifty cent check in an envelope with postage of at least half that amount
for the great 17" monitor class action suit.

"RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
> It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
> "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
> tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
> charlatans.
>
> --
>
> Rich/rerat
>
> (RRR News) <message rule>
> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
>
>
>
> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
> news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> Dell is involved in a class action suit for
> "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
> switched parts and charged her for the more
> expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
> for which no one qualifies and then charges
> ridiculously high interest rates.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
>
> http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Then there was the class action suit against Gateway brought by some
Philadelphia lawyers a number of years ago. Gateway advertised and stickered
many of its 486 computers as "Pentium Ready", meaning that a special Type 3 ZIF
socket Pentium OverDrive could be installed and run.

Micronics designed the motherboards used by Gateway, and the basis of the design
was a prototype Pentium OverDrive with an internal write-through cache, a more
conservative cache design. Then Intel changed the Pentium OverDrive, and the
final version had a write-BACK cache. When installed in a Gateway system, the
chip ran slower than slow, maybe about as fast as an IBM AT, and bus-mastering
devices like NICs and SCSI cards refused to work.

So the lawyers sued Gateway, and the settlement approved by the judge consisted
of megabucks for the lawyers and coupons to owners of Gateway 486 computers.
The coupon was good for $50 off on the purchase of a Pentium OverDrive processor
from Gateway, at its usual inflated prices !!! So, let's see. What does a
discount coupon for a processor I can't use in my system do for me? I wonder
how many people gleefully cashed in their coupons and bought Pentium OverDrives
from Gateway.

Intel eventually compensated by making available an "interposer", a little
socketed thingie installed between the Pentium OverDrive and the ZIF socket.
The sole purpose of the interposer was to raise a signal on the CPU to force its
cache to operate in the write-thru mode which was compatible with most ZIF
Socket 3 486 motherboards.

Needless to say, this was the least successful "OverDrive" CPU ever done by
Intel. The 486-DX4 OverDrive was OK, as were several Socket 5 Pentium
OverDrives and the Socket 8 Pentium Pro OverDrive. Finally Intel gave up on
OverDrives... Ben Myers

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:50:32 GMT, "Christopher Muto" <muto@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:

>i agree that the buyer probably didn't read the credit terms to find
>themselves with an unexpected rate... i always see that "for qualified
>customers" in all of their advertisements that probably releases them of any
>wrong doing... but i also believe in the court systems so let it take its
>course and see what happens. the only tort reform that i think should be
>done is to cap fees that lawyers are allowed to extract for class action
>suits. i feel that there is a valuable public service that comes from class
>actions suits which is to keep companies on the straight and narrow so that
>they avoid such actions... but from a monetary perspective the only real
>winners from class actions are the lawyers. i remember once receiving a
>fifty cent check in an envelope with postage of at least half that amount
>for the great 17" monitor class action suit.
>
>"RRR_News" <nospam@isp.com> wrote in message
>news:HPadnZZM5u_6nb_fRVn-ow@comcast.com...
>> It seems someone did not read the credit terms, before purchasing item,
>> "buyers' remorse". And lawyers trying to make a buck from it. Hope federal
>> tort reform gets passed by the congress, so we can get rid of these
>> charlatans.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rich/rerat
>>
>> (RRR News) <message rule>
>> <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
>> news:gK6dndSLI7EFzLzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>> Dell is involved in a class action suit for
>> "bait and switch", where a nurse claims Dell
>> switched parts and charged her for the more
>> expensive items, and for promising "easy credit"
>> for which no one qualifies and then charges
>> ridiculously high interest rates.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/22/technology/dell_lawsuit.reut/
>>
>> http://www.lerachlaw.com/lcsr-cgi-bin/mil?templ=featured/dell.html
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Nascar12" wrote:
>
>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>
>
>
> I agree.
>
> *TimDaniels*

The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.

Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.

If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
protection from class action.

All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerry Park" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
>> "Nascar12" wrote:
>>
>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
> The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>
> Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
> merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
>
> If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
> making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
> the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
> similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
> market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
> protection from class action.
>
> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
> cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.


Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
wrote:

>Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
>> "Nascar12" wrote:
>>
>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.

Depends how you look at it. Perhaps the payout from the suite is low,
however, the threat of future lawsuits can keep companies honest; so
in this sense the public can profit from the action. I think you would
agree that it is not enough to trust big business to do the right
thing, they are in business to make money and this means push the
legal envelope. The Justice Department doesn't have the time to keep
every company in line, so we rely on the trial lawyers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> "Nascar12" wrote:
>>>
>>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company
>>>> beware" to
>>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>> The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>>
>> Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of
>> the merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
>>
>> If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
>> making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it
>> from the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies
>> making similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product
>> from the market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing
>> provides no protection from class action.
>>
>> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone.
>> The cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you
>> buy.
>
>
>
> Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
> still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
> don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
> consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
> if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
> to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?
>
> *TimDaniels*
>
No, I don't have the resources to sue someone. If I received a bad
product from one of the above listed companies, and the company did not
deal appropriately with me, I'd just lose the cost of the product.

If, however, someone filed a class action suit against the company that
sold me a bad product, I'd still lose the cost of the product and I
would pay more for the replacement product. You don't really think
anyone BUT lawyers receive anything of real value from class action suits?

 

[gb]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:x1KUd.37516$Rl5.8794@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
> cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.

The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
any other country. That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
making work for themselves.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Code4u wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>"Nascar12" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware" to
>>>>maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>*TimDaniels*
>>>
>>>
>>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>>
>>
>
>Depends how you look at it. Perhaps the payout from the suite is low,
>however, the threat of future lawsuits can keep companies honest; so
>in this sense the public can profit from the action. I think you would
>agree that it is not enough to trust big business to do the right
>thing, they are in business to make money and this means push the
>legal envelope. The Justice Department doesn't have the time to keep
>every company in line, so we rely on the trial lawyers.
>
>
I agree that there are 'bad' companies. But most successful companies
want to provide a good product at a good price. They do that because it
is good for business.

A company that has to be 'kept in line' with the threat of a lawsuit,
won't be 'kept in line'. They will just see the lawsuit as the cost of
doing business.

Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have an effect is on good
companies who do want to do a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit
mentality forces them to charge more for their product than they
otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.

It hardly matters (in terms of cost) if a company wins or loses such a
lawsuit. The cost of winning is extremely high. And everyone doing
business with that company pays the increased cost of their product.

Class action lawsuits do no good to the complaintants and harm everyone
else.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
wrote:

>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>
>Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
>merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.

Oh, I think the threat of big lawsuits keeps a lot of companies honest
that wouldn't be otherwise. So, indirectly, we all do benefit.

Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
like that, wouldn't you?
--
Top 10 Conservative Idiots:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerry Park" wrote:
> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit
> mentality forces them to charge more for their product
> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.


And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
"frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
practices.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Paul Knudsen wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 13:12:59 -0600, Jerry Park <NoReply@No.Spam>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>>
>>Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
>>merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
>>
>>
>
>Oh, I think the threat of big lawsuits keeps a lot of companies honest
>that wouldn't be otherwise. So, indirectly, we all do benefit.
>
>Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
>deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
>wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
>like that, wouldn't you?
>
>
Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>
>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
>> charge more for their product
>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
>
>
>
> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
> practices.
>
> *TimDaniels*

No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.

To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
class action.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

right, and that is why i suggested (above) that the reform should be on how
much in fees the lawyers are allowed to collect and not how much a
complainant is allowed to receive. it is disgusting how little is paid out
to the complainant. fees can still be attractive to the lawyers at one
quarter of what they currently collect in such matters. fees as a ratio to
the settlement amount can be legislated. limiting the right to sue or
limiting the possible reward to the complainant goes against the fundamental
principal of a free market economy.

"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:Q5PUd.25461$hd6.3896@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>>
>>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Nascar12" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There has to be at least a little threat of "let the company beware"
>>>>> to
>>>>> maintain a balance otherwise it'll be open season on consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> *TimDaniels*
>>>
>>>
>>> The only people who profit from class actions are the lawyers.
>>>
>>> Since companies are going to be sued in class action, regardless of the
>>> merits of the case, the threat of a class action is not a detriment.
>>>
>>> If you don't believe that, witness the Vioxx lawsuits. The company
>>> making Vioxx determined it might increase mortality and pulled it from
>>> the market. Because of that, it is being sued. The companies making
>>> similar drugs (Celebrex and Bextra) did not pull their product from the
>>> market. They are not being sued. Doing the right thing provides no
>>> protection from class action.
>>>
>>> All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
>>> cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps it is factored into every drug that you buy, but there is
>> still *some* incentive to keep the cost of drugs down so that doctors
>> don't prescribe alternative drugs. On the other hand, how else would
>> consumers be protected from being cheated by large corporations
>> if there could be no class action suits? Do *you* have the resources
>> to sue, say, Microsoft? GE? Toyota? Merril Lynch? Dell?
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>>
> No, I don't have the resources to sue someone. If I received a bad product
> from one of the above listed companies, and the company did not deal
> appropriately with me, I'd just lose the cost of the product.
>
> If, however, someone filed a class action suit against the company that
> sold me a bad product, I'd still lose the cost of the product and I would
> pay more for the replacement product. You don't really think anyone BUT
> lawyers receive anything of real value from class action suits?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:01:22 -0600, Jerry Park wrote:
>
> A company that has to be 'kept in line' with the threat of a lawsuit,
> won't be 'kept in line'. They will just see the lawsuit as the cost of
> doing business.

Enron, Arthur Anderson, etc....

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[gb]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
news:WNUUd.18769$Q47.16520@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> Paul Knudsen wrote:
>
>>
>>Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
>>deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
>>wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
>>like that, wouldn't you?
>>
> Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...

Some of it is daft. Like the girl who was so pleased at her pay raise that
she hopped, skipped and jumped back to her desk. She snapped her Achilles
Tendon on the way, so sued her employers for not protecting her properly.
She won!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Jerry Park" wrote:
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>>
>>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
>>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
>>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them to
>>> charge more for their product
>>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
>>
>>
>>
>> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
>> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
>> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
>> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
>> practices.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
> No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
> class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
> lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
> the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
>
> To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
> business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small benefit
> is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of business by
> class action.


While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class action suits,
we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They can drag
on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why they are
frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees, and the
company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits, and
companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I agree that
class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but in the
absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Gosh! Let's turn this thread into a debate about the Bush administration's tort
reform proposal, which would reduce the number of class action lawsuits. Based
on 4 years and 2 months in office, one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
the United States... Ben Myers

On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 11:22:57 -0000, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>"Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
>news:WNUUd.18769$Q47.16520@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>> Paul Knudsen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Some awards may have gotten out of hand, though. But some are
>>>deserved, like the girl in North Carolina who got a transplant of the
>>>wrong blood type. I mean, I'd double-check and triple-check something
>>>like that, wouldn't you?
>>>
>> Certainly. But then, that wasn't a class action ...
>
>Some of it is daft. Like the girl who was so pleased at her pay raise that
>she hopped, skipped and jumped back to her desk. She snapped her Achilles
>Tendon on the way, so sued her employers for not protecting her properly.
>She won!
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>
>> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> "Jerry Park" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where the 'keep them in line' attitude is does have
>>>> an effect is on good companies who do want to do
>>>> a good job at a reasonable cost. The lawsuit mentality forces them
>>>> to charge more for their product
>>>> than they otherwise would, just to pay for frivolous lawsuits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And who is to decide for us which lawsuits are "frivolous"
>>> and which are "non-frivolous"? You base your argument on
>>> the implied assumption that all class action law suits are
>>> "frivolous" and not with the effect of curbing unfair corporate
>>> practices.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>> No. I know many do have merit. My point is that no one benefits from
>> class action law suits except the lawyers. This is the case when the
>> lawsuit is frivolous and when it has merit. It is still the case when
>> the complaintant wins and when the complaintant loses.
>>
>> To be fair, there is some benefit when a bad company is forced out of
>> business with a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, that small
>> benefit is well offset by the good companies which are forced out of
>> business by class action.
>
>
>
> While it's mostly attorneys who benefit *directly* from class
> action suits,
> we all benefit indirectly as consumers because the threat of law suit is
> one of the few things that keep corporations in check. The government
> is *supposed* to do that for us, but, well... you know how that goes.
> Whenever a class action suit is slapped on a publicly-owned company,
> its stock price goes down because every analyst knows what a drain they
> frequently are on the corporate officers' time and attention. They
> can drag
> on for years and sap a company's strength and vitality. That is why
> they are
> frequently settled out of court. The attorneys reap a wad of fees,
> and the
> company goes on, but a bit chastised. Corporations may set aside funds
> for unforeseen law suits, but those funds come out of company profits,
> and
> companies try to avoid law suits to keep their profit margins up. I
> agree that
> class action suits are an inefficient way to police corporations, but
> in the
> absence of effective government agencies, what other mechanism is there?
>
> *TimDaniels*

Free market forces?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>
> one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
> Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
> presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
> the United States... Ben Myers

Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
stop whining.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

 

[sparky]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

GB wrote:

> "Jerry Park" <NoReply@No.Spam> wrote in message
> news:x1KUd.37516$Rl5.8794@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>>All class actions do is enrich lawyers and raise costs to everyone. The
>>cost of class actions is factored into the cost of everything you buy.
>
>
> The last time I looked, the USA had more lawyers per head of poulation than
> any other country.

True

> That was quite a long time ago, so it might have changed.

Only in that the US has even more lawyers now.

> Clearly, if you have that many lawyers sitting around, they'll find a way of
> making work for themselves.

Obviously.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

And, of course, the people voted based on all the facts presented objectively to
the public by the Bush regime. Getting back on topic, talk about your bait and
switch! ... Ben Myers

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 14:15:57 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 13:20:03 +0000, Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> one must conclude that ANY initiative by the
>> Bush administration would benefit the oligarchs who bought and paid for this
>> presidency, and works to the detriment of the large and growing underclass in
>> the United States... Ben Myers
>
>Got news for you - the people voted and BUSH WON - now face that fact or
>stop whining.
>
>--
>spam999free@rrohio.com
>remove 999 in order to email me
>