It was the wrong thread

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

and yes burger the manufacturer should have a very straightforward claim. you don't think removing the reason these bottles might be at the Dollar Store won't hurt sales of the higher priced stuff at the local Pig's?

Posner mentions the possibility of a civil claim by the manufacturer. But the manufacturer appears to have known at least that they would be sold at the dollar store. I'm not sure how new labels would hurt the sales at the local Piggly--I'm kind of envisioning a self-stick label applied by the dollar store, not an actual replaced label of the whole thing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Posner mentions the possibility of a civil claim by the manufacturer. But the manufacturer appears to have known at least that they would be sold at the dollar store. I'm not sure how new labels would hurt the sales at the local Piggly--I'm kind of envisioning a self-stick label applied by the dollar store, not an actual replaced label of the whole thing.

the reason it is cheaper is that it was suppose to come with a label that says the manufacturer doesn't believe it is good anymore. that way, people who buy into the date can tell themselves it makes sense to pay $5 (at a grocery) for a bottle instead of $1. The guy could have posted a sticker saying "expiration dates don't matter. He didn't. He posted a sticker that implies they matter. in fact, that he bothered to put new stickers on shows that they matter very much to consumers. I assume he covered the old date with the new sticker, no?

Say if you were convinced it made sense to buy high octane premium gas. It would be one thing if I sell regular and put a sign saying "Don't buy premium. It doesn't add anything, it just cost more."

That's not what the guy did. He put a sign up calling the regular premium.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That's not what the guy did. He put a sign up calling the regular premium.

That analogy would be better if the government established the use-by date. Henri's did based apparently on its subjective view of what still met its standards. He had a different view of what was best. I see the civil issues, sure, but criminal fraud? Not really.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

That analogy would be better if the government established the use-by date. Henri's did based apparently on its subjective view of what still met its standards. He had a different view of what was best. I see the civil issues, sure, but criminal fraud? Not really.

It would be better, i agree. but better up from very good, not better up from doesn't apply.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Putting aside the facts of the case, which are pretty weak on which to base a prosecution, I wonder why a dressing maker would specify a "best if purchased by" date. That suggests somehow it's doing worse sitting on a store shelf. But surely that's not the case. So of what relevance is the purchase date, other than as a quasi-guarantee that up to that date it's in good shape, after maybe not. But if that's what the "best by" date means, it should be a consumption date.

Posner says that the stuff is good for years and years. But you can imagine that the company wouldn't want people to be told that, since it makes the dressing sound artificial, even if it isn't. Also, the date may induce some people to throw away perfectly good dressing and buy more, in circumstances where they'll think they're to blame for leaving it on the shelf too long.

eta: Or what Cletus said.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Posner says that the stuff is good for years and years. But you can imagine that the company wouldn't want people to be told that, since it makes the dressing sound artificial, even if it isn't. Also, the date may induce some people to throw away perfectly good dressing and buy more, in circumstances where they'll think they're to blame for leaving it on the shelf too long.

eta: Or what Cletus said.

Grandma Greedy used to stick all kinds of stuff in cans with vinegar and stick it down in the basement for time immemorial. It's called "pickling". Folks are surpised that spices in vinegar and oil keeps for a while?

I don't think the judge made conclusions one way or another about any of this stuff. He just said the Government hadn't proven its case. Instead of introducing evidence, the prosecutor just raved and spewed a bunch of irrelevant blustery shit. That's not how you prove a case.

I understand why Hank doesn't understand this. Why don't the rest of you?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Posner says that the stuff is good for years and years. But you can imagine that the company wouldn't want people to be told that, since it makes the dressing sound artificial, even if it isn't. Also, the date may induce some people to throw away perfectly good dressing and buy more, in circumstances where they'll think they're to blame for leaving it on the shelf too long.

Sure, but "best if used by" serves the same function. Unless it's a weasel to comply with multiple, inconsistent state laws.*

*I'd love to see multistate packaging that says something like:

Best if used by: 3/13/09 in New Jersey
Best if purchased by: 3/13/09 in New York
Best if consumed by: 6/13/09 in California

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?

The point of the opinion is "misled how?" And, if so, it was not proved. I love it, although I think Posner should have shouted defense counsel out by name because so many let this sort of prosecutorial crap sail by.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

The point of the opinion is "misled how?" And, if so, it was not proved. I love it, although I think Posner should have shouted defense counsel out by name because so many let this sort of prosecutorial crap sail by.

I answered this. I don't know if it is a crime or not, I do know consumers were misled. Go read my post to Burger about gas.

GGG, you logout, delete your last post, then redo with your old southern guy sock. I think some people may not know its you, and when you do your dumber shit, it is a good way to decrease the harm you do yourself. WTTW.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

GGG, you logout, delete your last post, then redo with your old southern guy sock. I think some people may not know its you, and when you do your dumber shit, it is a good way to decrease the harm you do yourself. WTTW.

Wire fraud!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Wire fraud!

I'm sure we will agree no one has ever been misled by GGG. Or led for that matter.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

although I think Posner should have shouted defense counsel out by name because so many let this sort of prosecutorial crap sail by.

He did: Juliet Sorensen

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm sure we will agree no one has ever been misled by GGG. Or led for that matter.

How many people in the dollar store looked at the date label?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

How many people in the dollar store looked at the date label?

does someone have to be shown to be fooled for the crime to be complete? say when a cop sets up a con man, no one is fooled by the attempt, but he is still prosecuted, isn't he?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

He did: Juliet Sorensen

She was the fuckwad prosecutor, not defense counsel.