While I find myself agreeing with almost everything phillip has to say, I do have this slight criticism. Phillip, you have made a lot more money than the average person in your life. So the idea of throwing away "a few $thousand" is less an issue for you than it is for the rest of us unwashed heathens. Why the relentless upper-middle class perspective?
-- adam margulies, April 11, 1998
It seems that many of these litigation problems could have been avoided by the use of registered mail. When you hold the receipt for a registered letter, there can be no legal doubt that the letter that you sent had reached its intended recipient.Surely you sent your correspondence using registered mail.
-- Grendle@aol.com --, May 21, 1998
You wrote: "...the famous McDonald's hot coffee incident. ... But I never saw anyone address the question of whether McDonald's had ever apologized for the injuries and offered to pay for her medical expenses. I'm guessing that they did not and that she never would have filed suit if they had."From: http://www.brown-szaller.com/bzqrt-4.htm
(paraphrased): The woman was 81 years old.
McDonald's knew about the temperature issue for years. 700 incidents of scalding cases had been settled in the past.
The scalding was so severe it caused THIRD DEGREE BURNS.
The victim has stated that she never would have sued them if they hadn't refused to pay her medical bills.
I've heard that the original suit was for the cost of the medical bills, around $8,000, but the site doesn't mention this. (The envirolink page below quotes Nader as saying it was $20,000).
The amount the jury awarded, 2.7 million dollars, was approximately two days worth of coffee sales for McDonalds (they gross about 1.3 million dollars a day from coffee).
The amount the judge actually awarded was $480,000.
Apparently McDonald's hasn't learned its lesson; somebody else sued them for first and second degree scalding burns, in 1997.
Most of the links out there are people who don't know any of the details, but hey, here's one from the envirolink network (I volunteered there a bunch back in '95) that quotes Ralph Nader:
http://arrs.envirolink.org/maiLists/mclibel/mc95-73.html
One thing this little exercise has left me with is a strong desire to email the rest of the 33 links I found with the real details of the story - or perhaps just the ones that are obviously personal web pages.
-- Steven J. Owens, December 30, 1998
Thoreau would have smiled at Phil's comments, and I mean this as a compliment. A crucial point for further reflection here is the distinction between individuals and corporations (for these purposes nonprofits also count). Phil comes close when he says that corporations have no soul -or psique. The missing corollary is that not being real persons, corporations should not be treated as such; sadly, our legal framework accords them rights which work reasonably for individuals with limited resources and lifetimes (most persons), but become a mockery in the hands of large organizations, for which devoting just some of their resources to manipulate the system becomes feasible on a routine basis. It is illuminating to realize that this was not always so: a mere century and a half ago (in the US, double that time in the UK, where the concept of corporation was born), corporations were given very stringent charters, had limited lifetimes and business domains, etc.
As for the `upper middle class' viewpoint which Adam Margulies decries above, the principles stand for most of the demographic who read these lines, appropriately scaled. Being really poor is an entirely different matter, of course.
-- Cris Pedregal Martin, May 20, 1999
The Uniform Commercial Code applies to transactions between _merchants_ and not between ordinary consumers and merchants.Ordinary Joe and Josephine Consumer have much more protection under various consumer protection laws that vary widely by state. The UCC above applies in every state except for Louisiana.
-- Matthew Endo, June 1, 1999
The previous comment of Mr. Endo stating that the Uniform Commercial Code does not apply to transactions involving consumers is incorrect. He is correct, however, in suggesting that consumer protection statutes are an important source of protections for individual consumers. Consumer protection statutes are in addition to any remedies that an individual consumer might against a merchant under the UCC. Many, perhaps most, states have consumer protection offices, frequently as a part of their attorney general or equivalent office. The filing of a consumer protection complaint a little cost may sometimes bring a good result in an appropriate case, without resort to hiring an attorney and commencing litigation.
-- Maureen Garde, June 13, 1999
I've been a litigator for 23 years. The best advice I can give to people who are victims of wrongful behavior at the hands of another is that they should ask themself if the American civil justice system will give them what they want or expect. So that their wants and expectations can be immediately dashed, let me point out that the only thing the civil justice system can deliver is money. You will not get an apology, you will not get your health [or whatever] back, and your life will not be the same as before you were wronged. At most, you will get a check after your lawyer deducts fees and costs. And then, I guarantee you that it will be less money than you want or expect and that it will come to you so slowly that your next company paid six-week vacation to [fill in the name of some place you have never been to but think is exotic because you don't know any better] will come sooner. If that is what you are willing to tie yourself up in knots for, have at it and bless you. For those who are the wrongdoers, I could not agree more with the implication of a prior post that an apology is all most people want or need. If that happened more often, I would be out of work. But it doesn't so, ...., well, you get the drift.
-- Ken O'Brien, September 2, 1999
After 20 years of schooling they put me on the day [litigation] shift. And aside from getting a juicy slice of the american pie, I have really nothing I can be proud of, except for a few cases in the reporters, and nearly a like number of reversals on appeal. I guess the point of this is that not even lawyer, at least those that are honest with themselves, like this fool business. It's just that it is a juggernaught that feeds on itself. A client of mine, who just happens to be a prostitute, told me to get honest work, and she is a good client!
-- Geoffrey Giles, April 23, 2000
On the "Engineers and Scientists" hyperlink web page is found a paragraph with a photo of an apparently homeless man beside it:Albert, PhD Electrical Engineering and Computer Science MIT '84 relaxing on 15th Street in New York City. "I had a tenure-track position at Carnegie-Mellon but after seven years they said it was unfair to keep me from the great opportunities outside the university."
When a person becomes unable to earn a living at all due to a recurrent generic dispute with employers; then how does such a person maintain a "zero litigation" lifestyle? The alternative is to eventually die on the streets of America, as seems to have happened to the engineer cited above. "Taking the lumps" can make sense when luxuries are at stake, but is this realistic when physical survival is at stake?
-- Robert rIGGS, March 25, 2001
http://www.nolo.com/humor/jokes/44jokes.html
-- Thomas Fly, May 21, 2001
Your problems with including the non-litigation oath in your personal life reminded me of the Prisoner's Dilemma discussion in the book Complexity. The goal was to investigate why people cooperate at all, since in most situations cooperation gains a smaller immediate advantage in exchange for the risk of betrayal. The game-theory answer says that entities shouldn't cooperate, even though most people find it worthwhile to do so.The dilemma arises because of the expectation that cooperation or conflict is a one-time deal, without any persistence. If the situation is repeated, it becomes apparent that ongoing relationships give cooperation a much stronger advantage. In business -- and in particular in this business, where the explicit assumption is that happy customers will continue to pay -- the ongoing relationships give everyone reason to cooperate.
In private life, however, most big-money situations are not iterated -- at least, not often enough to matter. I don't expect that I'll buy a house more than once every ten years, or a car every five. If something goes wrong, I can't depend on enlightened self-interest convincing the other party to cooperate. (Yes, if the other party is wrong often, word-of-mouth will put them out of business, but that doesn't help me.) Result: personal big-money problems require some conflict resolution, such as litigation.
(Some smaller transactions do repeat, and probably get some advantage from cooperation -- e.g. take-a-penny/leave-a-penny at the grocer. I'd wager that smaller non-iterative transactions get ignored or litigated based on expected transaction costs i.e. is it worth the time to get the money back.)
-- Patrick Bowman, May 23, 2001
I applaud Philip's personal effort to rely less on litigation, and feel that it echoes a national need to rely less on legislation. Often when an individual feels slighted, injured, or infringed upon in any way, the phrase "there oughta be a law" comes to their mind. Elected officials often campaign for re-election on the strength of all the "good" new laws they have passed. The law books continue to grow to the point that even the best trained attorneys often cannot stay fully abreast of all the possible legislation that could have bearing on a particular case. "Zero litigation" is probably as unrealistic as "zero legislation." But I wish for people to develop a habit of thought where having to make laws, and having to compel people to perform according to them, are both regarded as a regrettable form of ultimate recourse, when no voluntary, cooperative strategy can suffice. On a personal note, several posters have wondered whether it is possible for financially disadvantaged individuals to live a "zero litigation" lifestyle. I have been both destitute and successful, and have been able to follow a philosophy much like Philip's throughout these financial ups and downs. However, even when I had no assets and was deep in debt, I was blessed with the ability to work and earn, making my own way out of the hole. Perhaps ability is the actual determinant of who can afford to make such lifestyle choices as "zero litigation." If you get knocked down but have no means to pick yourself up, perhaps you have no choice but to turn to society (the courts) for redress from without. Whereas a resourceful artist/programmer/citizen like Philip has sufficient ability, and confidence in his ability, to rely on his own strength.
-- Rob Heittman, October 22, 2001
Lawyers and guns have one aspect in common. Sometimes, the threat is more productive than the actual use. I'm sure most of the time the 'no-litigation' strategy is the best, but it's most efficient not to let people know you've adopted this policy.
-- Ed Bolton, October 27, 2001