On Sat, 17 May 2014 14:51:51 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 2:43 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2014 11:37:35 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 5/17/2014 9:22 AM, Leon wrote:

There seems to be a double standard going on. Some of us think that the
temperature of hot coffee should be better regulated and that the
government getting involved to prosecute the provider is OK.

??

Bzzzztt .... This was a _civil_ lawsuit.

No "government involvement" at all, and none remotely discussed,
anticipated or ever even suggested.

So you're saying that civil law is outside the purview of the
government? Odd. Really odd.

Nope, it is you "saying that".

You deny government's involvement ("No "government involvement" at
all"). That *is* what you're saying.

Once again, what any of us, including our resident trolls, consider is a
proper "serving temperature for coffee is totally irrelevant to the
reality of the situation.

When you lose a _civil_ lawsuit in front of a jury of your peers and
based on presented facts of questionable business practices, you change
those questionable business practices.

So anything a jury wants to do is just peachy? No rules apply? The
government doesn't make the rules?

Again, there is no one other than you "saying that".

That is what you said. I just changed the words, not your conclusion.

As has happened countless times to protect consumers, our CIVIL legal
system punished a questionable, and provably injurious, business
practice, which is exactly what it was designed to do.

End of story...

No, it's not the end of the story. Bring it up again in a month and
see. ;-)

Be my guest. Please direct us to a source that states the trial is not
over, that a settlement was not reached, and that it is not unarguably
and irrevocably concluded.

Oh, good grief.