Mexican Cooking (alt.food.mexican-cooking) A newsgroup created for the discussion and sharing of mexican food and recipes.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-10-2019, 08:29 PM posted to alt.food.fast-food,alt.stupidity,alt.food.mexican-cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 358
Default A Couple Is Suing Taco Bell for Overcharging Them $2.18 for Chalupas - Cool lawsuit, guys.


"Ubiquitous" wrote in message
...
Last May, a New Jersey couple caught a Taco Bell commercial on TV, and
they
were excited enough by the chalupa-based combo that were being advertised
that they drove to the nearest 'Bell to get one. Although the TV spot said
that the Chalupa Cravings Box was 5 bucks, when Nelson Estrella-Rojas and
Joann Estrella each ordered one, they were charged $6.06 each, before tax.
Instead of just shrugging off the $2.18 difference and enjoying a shit-ton
of
fast food, they decided to hire an attorney.

According to NJ.com, the couple was "taken aback" by the price of each
Chalupa Cravings Box, which contained one Chalupa Supreme, one 5-Layer
burrito, one crunchy taco, an order of cinnamon twists and a medium drink.
Because the Estrellas sound like loads of fun, they asked to speak to a
manager, who told them that the commercial in question did say that prices
may vary.

That answer wasn't good enough, so they hired an attorney who was willing
to
type out a complaint alleging that the couple "sustained an ascertainable
loss" with their slightly more expensive visit to Taco Bell, including
their
"wasted time," the gas it took to make the six mile round trip, and that
crucial $2.18. They have filed a lawsuit against both Taco Bell and Yum!
Brands, its parent company. (And here's where it's worth noting that it
costs
$250--the equivalent of roughly forty-one $6.06 Chalupa Cravings Boxes--to
file a civil lawsuit in a New Jersey state Superior Court.)

"You can't tell someone you are going to charge them $5 in big bold print
and
then take it away with a fine print disclaimer," their attorney, Douglas
Schwartz, said. "You can't do that. It's against the law."

The lawsuit alleges that Taco Bell has violated the state's Consumer Fraud
Statute, which requires disclaimers to be printed onscreen "in a type size
and style that is clear and conspicuous relative to the other type sizes
and
styles" used in the rest of the advertisement. In the :30 second
commercial
that the Estrellas saw, one called "Librarian," the "prices may vary"
disclaimer was 1/16 the size of the text that announced the arrival of the
$5
Chalupa Cravings Box. The lawsuit also says that the disclaimer was only
onscreen for three seconds.

"Defendants knew or should have known that the 'Librarian' television
advertising and other similar advertising would be viewed by members of
the
public including the plaintiffs and/or other prospective purchasers," the
lawsuit states, before adding "Defendants committed conduct likely to
deceive
plaintiffs by engaging in acts and/or practices as aforesaid with the
intent
to induce plaintiffs and other consumers to purchase its cravings boxes."

"It's a classic bait and switch," Schwartz told NJ.com. "It's consumer
fraud
being perpetrated upon not only citizens of New Jersey, but all over the
country. Taco Bell has reaped huge profits from their false, misleading
and
deceptive advertising."

The Bridgewater Courier News reports that, although the lawsuit was
initially
filed in Superior Court in Middlesex County, Taco Bell successfully had it
transferred to federal court, because neither the Taco Bell nor the Yum!
Brands headquarters are in New Jersey, and because there is the potential
for
punitive damages of more than $75,000.

"Taco Bell and its franchisees are proud to provide millions of guests
with
delicious, affordable food every day," the company told VICE in a
statement.
"Our advertisements are truthful and accurate, and we will defend this
case
vigorously."

Regardless of the outcome, it's gonna cost _somebody_ more than 2 bucks
and a
handful of change.


And yet there are isiots in this newsgroup who say their won't be lawsuits
for banning drive-throughs.



  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-10-2019, 10:54 PM posted to alt.food.fast-food,alt.stupidity,alt.food.mexican-cooking
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 7
Default A Couple Is Suing Taco Bell for Overcharging Them $2.18 for Chalupas - Cool lawsuit, guys.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:29:11 -0500, "Jerry Sauk"
wrote:


"Ubiquitous" wrote in message
...
Last May, a New Jersey couple caught a Taco Bell commercial on TV, and
they
were excited enough by the chalupa-based combo that were being advertised
that they drove to the nearest 'Bell to get one. Although the TV spot said
that the Chalupa Cravings Box was 5 bucks, when Nelson Estrella-Rojas and
Joann Estrella each ordered one, they were charged $6.06 each, before tax.
Instead of just shrugging off the $2.18 difference and enjoying a shit-ton
of
fast food, they decided to hire an attorney.

According to NJ.com, the couple was "taken aback" by the price of each
Chalupa Cravings Box, which contained one Chalupa Supreme, one 5-Layer
burrito, one crunchy taco, an order of cinnamon twists and a medium drink.
Because the Estrellas sound like loads of fun, they asked to speak to a
manager, who told them that the commercial in question did say that prices
may vary.

That answer wasn't good enough, so they hired an attorney who was willing
to
type out a complaint alleging that the couple "sustained an ascertainable
loss" with their slightly more expensive visit to Taco Bell, including
their
"wasted time," the gas it took to make the six mile round trip, and that
crucial $2.18. They have filed a lawsuit against both Taco Bell and Yum!
Brands, its parent company. (And here's where it's worth noting that it
costs
$250--the equivalent of roughly forty-one $6.06 Chalupa Cravings Boxes--to
file a civil lawsuit in a New Jersey state Superior Court.)

"You can't tell someone you are going to charge them $5 in big bold print
and
then take it away with a fine print disclaimer," their attorney, Douglas
Schwartz, said. "You can't do that. It's against the law."

The lawsuit alleges that Taco Bell has violated the state's Consumer Fraud
Statute, which requires disclaimers to be printed onscreen "in a type size
and style that is clear and conspicuous relative to the other type sizes
and
styles" used in the rest of the advertisement. In the :30 second
commercial
that the Estrellas saw, one called "Librarian," the "prices may vary"
disclaimer was 1/16 the size of the text that announced the arrival of the
$5
Chalupa Cravings Box. The lawsuit also says that the disclaimer was only
onscreen for three seconds.

"Defendants knew or should have known that the 'Librarian' television
advertising and other similar advertising would be viewed by members of
the
public including the plaintiffs and/or other prospective purchasers," the
lawsuit states, before adding "Defendants committed conduct likely to
deceive
plaintiffs by engaging in acts and/or practices as aforesaid with the
intent
to induce plaintiffs and other consumers to purchase its cravings boxes."

"It's a classic bait and switch," Schwartz told NJ.com. "It's consumer
fraud
being perpetrated upon not only citizens of New Jersey, but all over the
country. Taco Bell has reaped huge profits from their false, misleading
and
deceptive advertising."

The Bridgewater Courier News reports that, although the lawsuit was
initially
filed in Superior Court in Middlesex County, Taco Bell successfully had it
transferred to federal court, because neither the Taco Bell nor the Yum!
Brands headquarters are in New Jersey, and because there is the potential
for
punitive damages of more than $75,000.

"Taco Bell and its franchisees are proud to provide millions of guests
with
delicious, affordable food every day," the company told VICE in a
statement.
"Our advertisements are truthful and accurate, and we will defend this
case
vigorously."

Regardless of the outcome, it's gonna cost _somebody_ more than 2 bucks
and a
handful of change.


And yet there are isiots in this newsgroup who say their won't be lawsuits
for banning drive-throughs.


There won't be.

But fear not, Chick-fil-A fiends, the zoning changes currently in
effect only affect new construction. Thus far, cities in California,
Missouri and New Jersey have implemented similar bans.
https://www.today.com/food/cities-ba...health-t164732

So go ahead and show us ONE lawsuit. We'll wait, Jenny.

[Theme from "Jeopardy" playing]



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Taco Bell Bruce[_28_] General Cooking 12 06-12-2018 08:14 PM
Taco Bell Delivery Japhy Ryder General Cooking 0 07-08-2015 01:17 AM
Just tried the Taco Bell Doritos Loco Taco ImStillMags General Cooking 39 02-05-2012 04:24 AM
Taco Bell Gets Last Word In Shakedown Lawsuit Mark Thorson General Cooking 14 03-06-2011 05:25 PM
taco bell! [email protected] Mexican Cooking 3 27-08-2006 06:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017