View Single Post
Old 04-27-2011, 09:13 AM   #146 (permalink)
semtex
A True Z Fanatic
 
semtex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Behind enemy lines
Age: 54
Posts: 5,995
Drives: People to drink
Rep Power: 32
semtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond reputesemtex has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed View Post
A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a box of 24 rare and very expensive cigars, insured them against... fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars, and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars in "a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion. The man sued, and won.

In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that the man held a policy from the company in which it was warranted that the cigars were insurable. The company, in the policy, had also guaranteed that it would insure the cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," and so, the company was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss. Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he had lost in "the fires."

However, shortly after the man cashed his check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of arson. With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24 consecutive one-year prison terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed View Post
PHILADELPHIA, Pa. - A woman is suing the pharmacy that sold her a popular contraceptive jelly - because she ate the stuff on toast and got pregnant anyway.

And, incredibly, many legal experts are saying she's got an excellent chance of collecting!

"The woman is a complete idiot," said one attorney who asked that we not use his name. "How bright can you be if you think eating a vaginal gel will prevent conception?

"But certain aspects of the case involve truth in labeling and false advertising issues. She may not collect but she'll make a lot of noise and trouble. People are down on lawyers anyway. They think we waste time and money on frivolous lawsuits. This isn't going to help our public relations any."

A spokesman for the unnamed mom-and-pop drugstore says he's shocked and angry that such a case could ever be taken seriously. "All she has to do is open the box and read the directions," says the spokesman. "Next thing you know someone will come after us because they couldn't stick things together with their toothpaste.

"I can just imagine some moron saying: 'It's paste, isn't it? Why can't I glue these papers onto my bulletin board?' "

But attorneys for Mrs. Chyton say she was swindled and lied to by implication and they intend to make the pharmacy pay $500,000 for the hardship the woman will have to endure.

"It says right on it 'jelly,'" says Mrs. Chyton, a former model who was once a cheerleader for a popular professional basketball team.

"And they kept it on the shelf just two aisles from the food section. I know, now, that the directions say it should be used vaginally with a condom.

"But who has time to sit around reading directions these days - especially when you're sexually aroused?

"The company should call it something else and the pharmacy shouldn't sell it without telling each and every customer who buys it that eating it won't prevent you from getting pregnant."

As bizarre as it sounds, the pharmacy could wind up losing the lawsuit. "It's hard for businesses to avoid troublesome lawsuits," said another attorney.

"With the courts bending over backwards to please consumer groups, the temper of the times is perfect for these crackpots to bring legal action against businesses - even a moronic legal action like this."
Snopes says both of these are false. *shrug*

snopes.com: Cigar Arson

snopes.com: Contraceptive Jelly on Toast
__________________
"There are no small accidents on this circuit." -- Ayrton Senna
316.8whp & 248 ft/lbs (Dyno Dynamics) | 319whp & 256 ft/lbs (DynoJet) (04/23/10)
Stillen G3 CAI, CBE, Pulley / F.I. LTH / GTSpec Ladder Brace / Setrab Oil Cooler / UpRev-tuned by Forged Perf.
semtex is offline   Reply With Quote