ICE, ICE, LAWSUIT Woman Sues Starbucks Over ‘Too Much Ice’
“Starbucks’ advertising practices are clearly meant to mislead consumers when combined with the standard practice of filling a cold drink cup with far less liquid than the cup can hold,” the suit claimed. NBC News reported that Pincus sought damages to the tune of $5 million against the coffee chain. “The plaintiff would not have paid as much,” her lawyers stated in a court document, “if anything, for the cold drinks had she known that they contained less, and in many cases, nearly half as many, fluid ounces than claimed by Starbucks. As a result, the plaintiff suffered injury in fact and lost money or property.” Starbucks’ response: “Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential component of any ‘iced’ beverage. If a customer is not satisfied with their beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it.” The company also reaffirmed that you can order any iced beverage with “light ice” and receive half the ice normally included. Interestingly, a second lawsuit against Starbucks popped up in Los Angeles a few months later, but both cases were thrown out. Pincus never saw a cent of that $5 million, nor did she recoup her attorneys’ fees. The case went on to be called “one of the most frivolous lawsuits of 2016.”
Sometimes, there is such a thing as “too much ice.” You’re sipping your cold beverage when suddenly, it’s gone far quicker than you expected. All you’re left with is a cup full of ice. It’s disappointing, for sure, but is it so disappointing that you would want to file a lawsuit against the company that supplied the beverage? That’s exactly what Stacy Pincus did in 2016. She ordered an iced coffee from Starbucks, only to find “too much ice” in her drink. The lawsuit, filed in Chicago, alleged that the drink was advertised as a 24-ounce beverage, but once the ice was factored in, Pincus and her lawyers claimed the drink was really only “14 fluid ounces.”
Election! The Presidential Election of 1828 Turned Politics Personal
It’s election season! But don’t worry, we’re not here to talk about this election season, a season full of emotion, strong feelings, and plenty of mudslinging. Rather, this is a look back at one presidential election that upset an entire country — an election that makes 2020 look tame!
always been polarizing, but in 1828, things really heated up.
it personal. They started going after one another’s wives and families, which the newspapers at the time loved. The Cincinnati Gazette called Jackson’s wife, Rachel, a “convicted adulteress.” She was in the process of getting a divorce when she married Jackson; however, the divorce had not been finalized when the marriage took place in 1794. This became a talking point for the opposition. It got to the point where Jackson gave up on talking about the issues and moved personal attacks to center stage. Adams tried to stick to the issues, more or less. However, the public sided with Jackson and Adams lost. But the drama didn’t end there. Days after the election, Rachel Jackson died. President-elect Jackson blamed her death on the mudslingers, saying, “May God Almighty forgive her murderers as I know she forgave them. I never can.”
Jackson had already lost to Adams in 1824. That election ended with no candidate winning the majority of the electoral vote. As a result, Speaker of the House Henry Clay had to cast a tie-breaking vote. (Clay had also been a candidate for president in the 1824 election.) Clay sided with Adams. And then Adams appointed Clay his secretary of state. Naturally, Jackson was not happy and accused the two of corrupt bargaining. Even Thomas Jefferson remarked on the events of 1824, writing that he was disappointed in the results. (He had supported William H. Crawford.) Even though Jefferson died in 1826, the Jackson and Adams campaigns used Jefferson’s words both to attack one other and praise themselves in the 1828 election.
1828: Andrew Jackson vs. John Quincy Adams (Incumbent)
Two new political parties entered the scene: the Democratic Party and the National Republican Party. These parties were established following the dissolution of the Federalist Party and the Democratic- Republican Party just a few years prior. Both Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were formerly of the Democratic- Republican Party. However, Jackson joined the new Democratic Party, while Adams Joined the National Republicans. After the split, historians note a newfound level of polarization in national politics. Politics had
Mudslinging defined the 1828 election with both Jackson and Adams making
2 | 803-500-0000
Published by The Newsletter Pro • www.newsletterpro.com
Made with FlippingBook Annual report