Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by 61falcon, Mar 14, 2019.
I don't see how speaking about a product one makes can be considered any kind of tort.
i hope remington counter sues every american, they are to blame for making this country what it is...
Spot on. This so far is only click bait headlines.
Evidently the court felt the product advertisig was meant to attract susceptible easily impressed people.
To buy their product? Isn't that kind of the point of advertising?
I doubt it. If they don't fight this to the end it'll cost them far more in the long run.
Even more nonsensical. The perp murdered his mother, stole the weapons and then murdered others. The killer had Asperger's syndrome so called high functioning autism, it is unlikely he ever saw the ads or could have responded to them if he had.
I like corn torts with cheese, beef, refried beans, sour creme and chives.
If you misrepresent sure, but not for an ad with facts and puffery
If you misrepresent, then the purchaser might have a claim that you defrauded them. Are the plaintiffs in this case saying they were defrauded by false advertising. It doesn't sound like it.
Connecticut has been chasing a lot of jobs away since it turned blue about 25-30 years ago.
Their argument is akin to "beer commercials make it look fun to drink beer and encourage people to drink beer therefore whenever anyone drinks beer and harm results, the advertiser should be liable"
It doesn't seem like a reasonable claim that somebody harmed the plaintiff.
Can you imagine what some fatso will get out of McDonalds?
I've yet to have the time to do more than read a few articles about it but I dont see how advertising an effective firearm for sale as such would make you liable for the torts and crimes of others.
I am not that impressed by Remington. I have a Para USA Model 1911 which had an extractor problem. Remington took over the warranty service for Para USA. I described the problem and sent one of the deformed brass along with the gun to a Remington gun shop. It still did the same thing and I sent it to them again They never repaired it properly. Our local gunsmith immediately recognized the problem and fixed it.
Typical Democrats looking to profit from dead kids.
Yet he was registered and licensed gun owner who went to the range on a regular basis.
Lets hope they get a jury trial with Connecticut PARENTS on the jury.We live in a perpetual war zone in the good old USA!!!
Just to try and keep the facts straight, the OP is not true. It says they can be sued for their marketing of the Bushmaster. That is not correct. They are being sued for HOW THEY MARKET the Bushmaster. Two totally different meanings.
Read my lips. This ain't going anywhere.
Lanza was barred from owning a firearm and was denied when he tried to purchase one. That's why he killed his mother and stole hers.
This will not hold up... 'Regrettably', (in this instance) the firearm functioned consistent w/ its design parameters. The only way Remington could be found 'at fault' is if there was a design or manufacturing defect that caused harm to the one using the product...
WE WILL SEE!!
Separate names with a comma.