Res Ipsa Loquitur

Jesus wept.

D

Isn't that ridiculous?

At what point do we all get to line up and kick her in the shins?

Wow. That's bad...so bad I had to share. http://iuilaw.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_iuilaw_archive.html#106675017098595549

I don't see how the distiction is so clear. Would a jar that contained 10 percent real strawerries, bulked up with 90 percent, say, shredded bannana peel be able to advertise itself as "Strawberry preserves -- 100 percent fruit"?

I love smuckers preserves. But when I see a label that says "strawberry preserves -- 100 percent fruit!" I imagine smuckers workers dillegently boiling down fresh strawberries into a bubbly goo of strawberry goodness.

It's a reasonable assumption that at least a significant portion of the "strawberry preserves" are in fact strawberries. In this case, it turns out that these "all-fruit preserves" are in fact mostly just bottles of concentrated grape juice.

If this is all explained on the label somewhere, I think the case is frivolous. But if the label misleads consumers into thinking they're buying preserved strawberries when they're actually buying fruit sugar liquid extracted from grapes, I'd say they've got some 'splainen to do.

That is like ordering chicken breast fingers and the cashier telling you it is 100% chicken. No way. Chicken breast fingers are supposed to be 100% breast meat. It is implied. If 70% were chopped up bone or feathers I would be a little upset.

Y'all never made jam or jelly did you? It's impossible to have strawberry jam that is 100% strawberries. At the very least you have to add pectin...that's what makes it jell. Otherwise all you have is mashed strawberries. And you need some type of sweetner, else it wouldn't taste very good...that's why they added the fruit syrup. So I don't think the label is misleading at all. The jam contains exactly what I would expect jam to contain.

All this information is clearly marked on the Smucker's label. I just now checked while I was in the supermarket. It says 100% Fruit, not 100% Strawberries.

And that's exactly what it contains.

The label can still be misleading. I'm not saying it IS misleading -- but calling something "100 percent fruit strawberry preserves" when the jar in fact contains, say 1 percent strawberries and 99 percent concentrated apple juice, could be misleading, right?

So here we have a question of degree. If we agree that one percent strawberries, 99 percent other stuff would result in a finding of misleading advertising, is 30 percent strawberries, 70 percent other stuff enough to dodge the misldeading label?

Only if the percentage of strawberries were less than in other jams, I suppose. And I would guess from eating Smucker's jams & jellys, they contain more fruit than most.

I think if you'll look at the Smucker's label, you'll agree it's not any more misleading than any other advertising.

Uh.... damn lawyers....

I've been making jellys and jams since I was about four, with Granny and my Mom... any damn fool knows what's in them and this bitch is just looking for a payday, and I ain't talkin' 'bout no candy bar.

One has to wonder just what the dizzball plaintiff's damages are (painfully assuming, for the sake of argument, that her case had some merit). I can see the damage claim now, being spewed from a plaintiff lawyer's word processor:

"Prior to the incident in question, plaintiff was a happy go lucky person who enjoyed her job, her family and loved life to its fullest. Now, however, she cannot sleep, she is regularly seeing a psychiatrist for treatment of her depression, she suffers from nightmares, and she can no longer work, enjoy her family or enjoy life."

Oh yeah, I forgot that, because of the jam incident she no longer wants to knock boots, thereby providing the basis for her husband's claim for "loss of consortium."

Phooey

I got the impression from the article that they were hoping to slide in with a false advertising claim. There was a mention of the hopes of getting a refund of $1 per jar for each class member. That's a huge award when you think about it....which I'm sure made her attorney's eyes light up.

On the few occasions I was confronted with a client like that, the only thought I had was of that nasty Rule 11....which is why I was never a trial lawyer.

From the Smucker's website:

"Simply 100% Fruit offers the fresh fruit taste and goodness of fruit spreads made with fruit and fruit ingredients..."

That doesn't seem misleading to me. Since every ingredient listed is indeed derived from fruit, I don't see the issue.

I wonder if the woman would bother pursuing this if all she was allowed to get was her measley $1.00 back.

I luve Smuckers; buy a jar every other week or so. So I imagine I'm due a couple hundred bucks if they win.

I think a main point of the class action suit is to hit up corporations that make huge amounts of money by screwing individuals out of very small amounts, on a large scale. Such suits are necessary because of the special nature of corporations as defendants.

It wouldn't be worth it to me, as an individual, to screw you out of a dollar -- the trust I'd lose wouldn't be worth it. The problem is that it IS worth it for big corporations to screw people out of their dollars -- those dollars ad up. Conversely, it's NOT worth it for us to try and get our individual dollars back.

The bigger the company, the more incentive to screw people for little bits here and there -- nobody complains (it's not worth it) and you get huge returns. THAT's why class action suits are a good thing despite the insignificance of individual claims.