<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/12/2007, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:jedi@mishnet.org">jedi@mishnet.org</a></b> <<a href="mailto:jedi@mishnet.org">jedi@mishnet.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> Michael T. Dean wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> Since when is the vendor responsible for misinterpretations of fact<br>>> caused by the consumer's ignorance?<br>><br>> Since some lawyers figured out that they can get judges (also lawyers)
<br>> to go along with this sort of nonsense.<br>><br>> I suspect you will find that the lawyers involved got a lot more out of<br>> the "settlement" than any "misled" consumers will.<br>>
<br>> Personally I suspect that no true consumer was really "harmed", which is<br>> supposed to be the justification for legal action.<br><br> Well, if all the petrol companies got together and decided to redefine
<br>the gallon I guess you really wouldn't be harmed by that either.</blockquote><div><br>Would that be a US or Imperial gallon?<br></div></div>-- <br>Paul Mason