Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Freedom of Speech?
I am no longer allowed to publish my work on the internet because it may be considered inappropriate collaboration.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Elite Dominated Institution (EDI)
Well, law school is officially an elite dominated institution. If you didn't summer in the Hamptons, then you're not welcome here. I filled out my student loan application and promissory note in March...when I logged in to find out the disbursement dates all records were lost...there was not a record of me having applied. So, I filed all the paperwork a second time on August 14th. Guess what? It was lost again. It's like a direct message to me, you're not our kind. So here I am without some of my books, and no money to buy them until the third week of class. Am I really suppose to believe it's some cosmic coincidence? It's seriously like being poor is a disablity. Just another way of keeping the brother down. There is NO assistance for book purchases and I'm without books for one of my classes and our financial aide (i.e. $18,500 in student loans, and $12,000 in blood, sweat, and tears scholarship money) doesn't come until September 1st. How fair is that? You're poor, that means you're not good enough to be part of our group...yay
What happened to the American Dream? If you work hard you get ahead... right? But it really doesn't matter your I.Q., grades, how much you've learned, how much you've studied, worked, etc. WHEN IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO IT, IT'S ALL A MATTER OF HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE, AND HOW WELL CONNECTED YOU ARE!!! Knowledge does not equal power...sorry, but it's money that equals power! I hope that my learning this the hard way may be an example to others not to follow the path that I have chosen.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
MIX V. INGERSOLL CANDY CO. et al.
MIX V. INGERSOLL CANDY CO. et al.
Supreme Court of California
June 30, 1936
6 Cal.2d 674, 59 P.2d 144
Facts
December 17, 1932, Harry F. Mix bought a chicken pie from the Ingersoll Candy Co. which contained a chicken bone sliver that injured him when he swallowed it.
Procedural History
Harry F. Mix filed suit against the Ingersoll Candy Co. for damages in the sum of $10,000. Judgment was found for the defendants, and plaintiff appealed. Judgment was affirmed by the Superior Court, and that decision was appealed.
Issue
Whether or not food served to a customer is a service or a good. Implied warranty of fitness would apply under section 1735 of the Civil Code if the food was a good. The doctrine of implied warranty is not applicable if the restaurant offered only a service.
Secondly, if served food is a good, can it be found to be reasonably fit for human consumption?
Judgment
Affirmed.
Holding
Food served in a restaurant or dining room is a good. Food furnished shall be reasonably fit for human consumption.
Ratio Decidendi
Dining rooms and restaurants are in a better position to know the quality of the food than the customer, and are therefore liable to warranty the fitness of their food similarly as a grocer or preparer of canned food goods would.
It is not unreasonable for a chicken pie to occasionally contain chicken bones. Much as is it not unreasonable for a cherry pie to occasionally contain cherry pits. The chicken pie would still be fit for human consumption. It is not unusual for meat to contain bones.
No Dissent
CLIETT V. LAUDERDALE BILTMORE CORPORATION, Inc.
CLIETT V. LAUDERDALE BILTMORE CORPORATION, Inc.
Supreme Court of Florida, Special Division B
March 22, 1949
39. So.2d 476
Facts
The Gibbs ate at the hotel dining room of the Lauderdale Biltmore Corporation and became sick as the result of a food borne illness.
Procedural History
Boggs and Delbridge Gibbs, of Jacksonville filed suit against the Lauderdale Biltmore Corporation for damages resulting from food borne illness. Demurrer was sustained and the Gibbs appealed. Appellate court issued a final judgment in favor of the Biltmore Corporation and Gibbs appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Issue
Whether or not unwholesome food served to a customer is a service or a good. Implied warranty of fitness would apply if the food was a good. The doctrine of implied warranty is not applicable if the restaurant offered but a service (of providing unwholesome food).
Judgment
Reversed and remanded.
Holding
Food served in a restaurant or dining room is a good.
Ratio Decidendi
Dining rooms and restaurants are in a better position to know the quality of the food than the customer, and are therefore liable to warranty the fitness of their food similarly as a grocer or preparer of canned food goods would.
Dissent
None.
No comments:
Post a Comment