Info Thomas Dorn - aeterrabyte

[Lucille]

What determines where the case will be?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1391

 

[cahrens]

Here is info about minority:http://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/

The first line is that document says...
"With some exceptions, a contract made by a minor is voidable."

I read the whole thing. It leads me to believe that you can't enter into a contract with a minor because they can "avoid" the contract if they choose to.

 

[Lucille]

The first line is that document says...
"With some exceptions, a contract made by a minor is voidable."

I read the whole thing. It leads me to believe that you can't enter into a contract with a minor because they can "avoid" the contract if they choose to.

That is not correct. You can enter into a contract with a minor and it is not illegal to do so. It is simply risky because in many cases in can be voided by the minor. However if the minor does not void the contract, it can be enforced, so it is a legally binding action.

1. If both parties agreed to the terms(30 day health and satisfaction guarantee) at the time of sale, isn't that what will be the deciding factor in any type of legal battle?

That is certainly an important factor. If I was the attorney for one of the parties I would be researching court cases to see if buyer negligence affects outcome.

But I would first demand proof that there is in fact an injury or illness, and so far the only purported documentation has not been validated.

 

[cahrens]

That is not correct. You can enter into a contract with a minor and it is not illegal to do so. It is simply risky because in many cases in can be voided by the minor. However if the minor does not void the contract, it can be enforced, so it is a legally binding action.

So, you can legally enter into a contract with a minor and you are legally bound by it, but they aren't? They just have to void it. That doesn't seem very fair. Legal but not wise to do so.

But I would first demand proof that there is in fact an injury or illness, and so far the only purported documentation has not been validated.

Yes, If you were refunding due to the health guarantee, such proof would be required. An unconditional guarantee of satisfaction though, there's nothing to prove there.

 

[cahrens]

Yes, If you were refunding due to the health guarantee, such proof would be required. An unconditional guarantee of satisfaction though, there's nothing to prove there.

Also, if you don't list conditions or exclusions, is it automatically unconditional?

 

[Lucille]

Does "Satisfaction Guaranteed" Actually Mean Anything?
Yes. Or your money back!
By Christopher Beam|Posted Friday, Dec. 19, 2008, at 6:10 PM ET
An appeals court rejected on Thursday the case of Roy Pearson, who famously sued a Washington, D.C., dry cleaner for $54 million for losing a pair of pants. Pearson claimed that a sign reading "Satisfaction Guaranteed" was deliberately misleading. Does "satisfaction guaranteed" have any legal meaning?
Yes. False advertising laws, both on the state and federal level, distinguish between deliberately misleading material claims that can be objectively proved untrue and "puffery"—subjective claims about a product or service that can't be measured. For example, if you say your hot dogs are the "cheapest in town" and that's not true, then a customer might have grounds to sue. But you can claim to sell the "best hot dogs in town" without worrying about lawsuits. Courts generally consider "satisfaction guaranteed" a material claim—not puffery—and therefore subject to challenge.
Advertisement

What determines satisfaction? Most courts define it as whatever a "reasonable person" would expect from a product or service. (Sometimes legal teams will even conduct surveys to figure out what reasonable customers think.) In the Pearson case, the trial court interpreted "satisfaction" to mean that "if there is a problem with drycleaning, laundry or alterations, the cleaner should try to fix it, and if the problem cannot be fixed, the cleaner should make reasonable compensation to the customer for the value of the damaged item." (Read the decision here [PDF].) In other words, pay them the cost of the clothing—not $54 million.
The difference between material claims and puffery is not always obvious. In 1957, the Federal Trade Commission won a case against a man who sold weaving kits and claimed that weaving was "easily learned." The court found that this statement wasn't just innocent puffery—it was "incorrect." Yet in 1949, a U.S. District Court found that the word original, as used to describe Anheuser-Busch beers, was meaningless and thus qualified as puffery. The distinction depends on the case, but in general a statement is deemed material if it plays a role in the consumer's decision to buy the product—or, in legal speak, if he or she "relies" on the vendor's promise.
Of course, the more explicit your promise, the more vulnerable you are if you violate it. It's one thing to say "satisfaction guaranteed." It's another to offer an "unconditional" guarantee, which is how Pearson interpreted the dry cleaner's sign. (The court disagreed.) For example, L.L. Bean promises, "Our products are guaranteed to give 100 percent satisfaction in every way." In keeping with that promise, L.L. Bean accepts returns at any time, for any reason.

 

[Fangthane]

That is certainly an important factor. If I was the attorney for one of the parties I would be researching court cases to see if buyer negligence affects outcome.

But I would first demand proof that there is in fact an injury or illness, and so far the only purported documentation has not been validated.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...Rg6o2b_Nm-61A&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.aWM&cad=rja

Misuse of Product by Injured Party or Subsequent Alteration
In many product liability lawsuits,manufacturers and sellers raise the improper
conduct of the buyer as a defense to lawsuits by injured buyers.They claim that
the buyer used their product either knowing that it was defective or in a manner
not contemplated by the seller,such as in the case of a teenager who mounts the
motor from a lawn mower onto a bicycle and is then thrown from the bike while
riding because the motor stalls and “dies out.” Although manufacturers and sellers
may generally have good cases,courts still offer some protection to the buyer by
applying the comparative negligence doctrine (see page 82) or limiting a seller’s
defense by requiring that the buyer’s misuse of a product not be foreseeable by
the seller.Subsequent alteration of the product by the user or consumer would
also be an obstacle to recovery.Section 402A of the Restatement,Second,of Torts
indicates that liability exists (on the part of manufacturers) only if the product
reaches the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in
which it was sold

 

[Fangthane]

Apparently, I've been awake for too long and skipped over too much in that article. Now that I've read it more closely, that quote doesn't seem to apply to a warranty situation; just general person injury from misuse. It's officially bed time.

 

[Focal]

Thomas was born July 18th, 1986 and is 26 years old.

 

[Willow]

I do not know if this has been done yet but I have sent a message to the clinic, with the letter attached, asking if they can confirm the letter came from their office. I stated I knew no info about the animal or owner could be released, but just wanted to confirm the letter itself due to the lack of letterhead and the spelling error in the offices name itself.

No idea if they will reply to me, or if anyone else has been able to confirm with them that this letter did indeed come from their office.

 

[reticguy76]

Not only did the "doctor" not spell his own clinic name correctly, there was at least one other incorrect spelling in that letter. This whole thing is a big joke and just worthless. What scares me is that this guy, as whacked out and just blind that he is, somehow gets by somewhat functioning in society. This guy truly believes what he is saying and writing here. Its pretty impressive actually. At some point, he has to realize what a joke he is. I mean nobody can be that incomplete as a person.

 

[Willow]

. I mean nobody can be that incomplete as a person.

wanna bet?

 

[reticguy76]

Hahahaha

 

[Lucille]

I guess we could feel sorry for his deficiencies if it wasn't for the critter involved. It was after he shoved the tube down and fed what he said was water, that the up-to-then healthy snake had all these problems.
It didn't deserve to be treated that way. And Thomas tried to validate his abuse of the snake by saying it urinated a minute later. Does he not have a clue to anatomy?

 

[Shadera]

I guess we could feel sorry for his deficiencies if it wasn't for the critter involved. It was after he shoved the tube down and fed what he said was water, that the up-to-then healthy snake had all these problems.
It didn't deserve to be treated that way. And Thomas tried to validate his abuse of the snake by saying it urinated a minute later. Does he not have a clue to anatomy?

Who of us hasn't been peed or pooped on by an animal we're restraining?

 

[DavidBeard]

Even a human whos urates are liquid would not pass water in under a minute, let alone a snake whose urates are solid......it takes them MUCH longer to process liquids. Its a hydration adaptation to preserve water.....but an idiot like Thomas thinks shoving water into a snake's epiglottis is justified because it urinated due to stress.

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Warning: people need to watch it with the name calling...

 

[jasballs]

it urinated because it was not dehydrating lol. the snake looks healthy in the video accept for the obvious spinning..

 

[DavidBeard]

Wow, somehow up until this point it has eluded my awareness that we're talking about a snake with the Spider gene......this might rub some people the wrong way, but IMO the best thing is for that animal to perish so the chance of spreading its defective genetics is extinguished completely. Ideal scenario is that the snake is humanely euthanized and a necropsy proving the lack of IBD is done, washing Rob's hands of that accusation.

 

[mikepanzarella]

David I'm sorry I disagree from reading they say the wobble it present in all snakes with the spider gene should we put them all down
It's also been said in this thread that even train wreaks can produce low wobble babies its more random not bad genetics