|
Class Action Stupidity
|
06-23-2017, 09:40 AM
It is my fervent hope that Menard's and HD fight this long and hard, and the stupid lawyer who filed it loses his shirt in time and expenses.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/nat...15874001/#
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis 
06-23-2017, 10:08 AM
(06-23-2017, 09:40 AM)Admiral Wrote: It is my fervent hope that Menard's and HD fight this long and hard, and the stupid lawyer who filed it loses his shirt in time and expenses. this is a case of idiots acting just like idiots. It would behoove the complainant to do a google search before acting so irresponsibly 
Let us not seek the Republican Answer , or the Democratic answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future John F. Kennedy
06-23-2017, 10:12 AM
The question here is will our legal system once again reward ignorance?
A retirement dedicated to fine woodworking and bad golf.
06-23-2017, 10:27 AM
(06-23-2017, 10:12 AM)3finger Wrote: The question here is will our legal system once again reward ignorance? Is there a reason to think things have changed?????
I started with absolutely nothing. Now, thanks to years of hard work, careful planning, and perseverance, I find I still have most of it left.
06-23-2017, 10:51 AM
According to this rather long article actual sizes for lumber became nominal size in the 19th century. They don't specify whether it was 1801 or 1899, but between 118 years and 217 years ago.
https://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/misc/...b_6409.pdf In 1963 the current nominal standard came to be. More importantly all the architectural testing has been done on nominal sized lumber. It is not as though the specifications for the wall required 2" x 4" (actual) to carry the load. It required the nominal size to carry the load. According to this document the 4" is equal to 3-5/8", but humidity can affect the size too.
No animals were injured or killed in the production of this post.
06-23-2017, 11:07 AM
There was a suit a while ago, alleging that some big box store was selling dimensional stock smaller than the standard sizes, which are of course smaller than nominal, and are taken into account in building codes. The sizes sold would lead to structures that did not meet code.
It's hard to tell whether this story is about a new stupid suit, or whether it's just very poor reporting on an earlier reasonable suit.
06-23-2017, 11:39 AM
Credo Elvem ipsum etiam vivere
Non impediti ratione cogitationis
06-23-2017, 12:30 PM
"...dimensions were not in fact 1" x 6"–6', but instead measured 0.66" x 5.25"–6"
Nominal 1" should be about .75", not .66". Nominal 6" should be 5.5", not 5.25". It seems to me the complaint is a mixture of almost complete nonsense, but with a few real gripes. 
06-23-2017, 12:46 PM
If the DIY'er did not know about lumber dimensions, what are they going to do when the code compliance folks see their project? I can guarantee that they don't know code either. Mortgage writers are getting sticky on that too! I am not stating that is right or wrong, just that it is. The next move is to sue HD because they told the no-help person in the orange apron what their project was, but they did not advise them it was against code!
My McHamburger, once cooked, does not weigh .25 pounds! On my way to see my attorney.
I tried not believing. That did not work, so now I just believe
06-23-2017, 03:01 PM
Did the lawyers advise their clients that they would not receive the bulk of the damages? That the attorneys will probably receive at least 33% of the awards and maybe even the bulk?
|
|
|
Here are some supplies and tools we find essential in our everyday work around the shop. We may receive a commission from sales referred by our links; however, we have carefully selected these products for their usefulness and quality.
