what part doesn't make sense? You have to have grounds to sue, what are the grounds??? Most people would go after deceptive trade practices, as it awards 3 times damages. What part of that doesn't make sense? As far as lawyers giving free advice, we'll if you're a lawyer, and you "advise" anyone, free or not, they just became your client. How long have you been practicing? I hope you have good insurance.

 

not to be rude or anything but jojipoji is right, i mean look at the people that sue McDonalds cuz the coffee was hot and they spilled it on themselves, thats just plain stupid, 2- Take the guy that sued Winnebago cuz he set the cruise on his winnebago motor home and went in back to make some food or something and then crashed cuz he thought cruise meant it drove itself, and he was awarded over a million dollars and a new Winnebago, cuz it wasn't in the owners manual.(not sure the exact amount i think it was like 3or4 mil) Try telling that to the cops after the accident when they asked what happened

So basically people can sue for anything even if it was their fault, you may win this or you may not, i think there are plenty of people in here to back you up

 

[QUOTE=GTSMWET]2- Take the guy that sued Winnebago cuz he set the cruise on his winnebago motor home and went in back to make some food or something and then crashed cuz he thought cruise meant it drove itself, and he was awarded over a million dollars and a new Winnebago, cuz it wasn't in the owners manual.(not sure the exact amount i think it was like 3or4 mil) Try telling that to the cops after the accident when they asked what happenedQUOTE]

You're kidding, right?

 

I'm not saying they can't sue, I'm just saying they have to have legal grounds. The McDonald's case was a tortious liability case, and the ol lady (or her lawyer did) needed to show:
(1) The existence of a legal duty owed by a person to others

(2) The breach of the duty by one person (negligence)

(3) The breach of the duty being the "proximate cause" of damages suffered by a person

(4) Damages incurred by a person

hence, she had legal grounds to sue. Not saying these guys can't sue, evo8.com, just saying they'll need to package up nice in some sort of legally accepted "grounds".

Never heard of the winibago case. Maybe that's why Mitsu didn't put cruise in the EVO.

 

Going off-topic here but you're making yourself look like a little bit of an idiot so I'll help you out a little. The Winnebago case is an urban legend. No such case has ever been brought to trial. It's fake. The McDonald's case, however, is true. But, as most people don't understand, the plaintiff, Stella Liebeck, suffered 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body. It wasn't just hot coffee, it was scalding hot coffee and McDonald's knew that their coffee was served too hot as they had 700 claims against them during the past 10 years for identical incidents.

[edit] More info on the McDonald's case if you care: http://caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts

 

r u sure? ok this is going to sound real dumb, but here goes anyway, i was at Applebee's the other nite, and they have like these cards with stupid FACTS on them, it even says on the card "STUPID FACTS" to read while you are waiting for your food and that was on there. so maybe i could sue them for false advertisement, not applbees but the card manufacturer.

anyways im not trying to be a jerk or anything thats for sure, there are a lot of great people on here, i was just stating that he may have a good chance of winning, due to the number of people on here that got/are getting ripped of by these guys.

sorry to get off-topic, again like i said earlier, GOOD LUCK!

 

just did a little more digging, and yeah you are right "urban legend" my bad
sorry for the false info, i thought it was real

http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

 

 

It's not easy to tell who's a lawyer in here and who's not, but I can tell you this. Anyone giving out legal advice over the internet is NOT a real lawyer. They can reguritate law school tort information all they want, but usually thats not all there is to it. I cant sit here and give you advice, and neither can ANY real attorney, but I can tell you two things. First, you wont get a class action lawsuit for only a few people. Second, your lawsuit isnt worth it to a lawyer unless you are paying them a retainer. In this case, you will likely spend more money on an attorney, than what you lost. You're only real option is small claims court, and depending on the state, the maximum is usually a few thousand dollars which should be sufficient for you.

 

By the way, the stuff dubbleugly stated is usually generally correct for common law tort, but those are the things the plaintiff needs to prove. You dont need all of them to bring a lawsuit, you just need to have the subjective view that all points are provable beyond 50% probability.

 

Ok guys and gals,

Here is my question! Why would you buy something from a "vendor" (which is what evo8.com appears to be, even though he wont or cant afford the $100 a month to be a silver vendor) who is no a certified vendor (or paying vendor) on this forum?

Just a thought?

 

Well this settles it I will never do business with EVO8.com.

If there are four theads about **** service then my guess is they have **** service.

One unhappy customer is understandable......arseloads of unhappy customers = bad business.

 

in the mcdonalds case it wasn't there was multiple customers complaining exactly. mcdonalds thought sserving coffee hotter then what is generally accepted would make it taste fresher. if it tasted fresher they could brew less pots a day and save millions. since execs. made that decision and was solely for the purpose of increasing profits, they were found laible.

class actions require that virtually everyone doing business w/ them or working there is getting screwed. it is more to do with a policy of the company or the product is hurting everyone who uses, purchases, etc. something like that. tobacco companies have had their class actions dropped about the harms of smoking b/c not every smoker is harmed necessarily. i would try to get them for fraud or something similar. plus class actions are really just money for lawyers and are used to set examples in industry. you are just one of the pawns that sets the wheels in motion. usually you will get next to nothing.

 

So what you are saying is if any lawyer gives you any advice in any manner you can put them on retainer? That absoulutely makes no sense. A retainer is an agreement between a lawyer and a client for legal services. Just because a lawyer gives you advice doesn't require that lawyer to provide you with further legal services.

 

Wow, this isn't going where I had hoped at all....

A lot of people have been screwed by evo8.com, and I just wanted to know if we had a strong legal case or not...something that could be brought to court.