4 ms·
It's not unreasonable because of the price tag, it's unreasonable because depicts a child flying a Harrier jet to school, saying "sure beats the bus!". Here's t
by openasocket 9y ago
It's not unreasonable because of the price tag, it's unreasonable because depicts a child flying a Harrier jet to school, saying "sure beats the bus!". Here's the quote: "In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired 'in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use."
It should also be noted civilians cannot even purchase a working Harrier Jet, for any price, legally.
- joering2 9y agoThanks. So once he lost his suit on those grounds, he should immediately file a lawsuit (possibly class-action) for fraud, false advertising and deceiving current and potential clients of Pepsi, since Pepsi lawyers admitted clearly that it is even impossible to deliver winning award to the winner, something they failed to reveal in the fine print. Unless of course Pepsi can prove that this commercial did not bring them any changes in profit.
- openasocket 9y agoDid you read the link? The suit WAS for fraud. And that quote was from the judge's ruling, not from Pepsi's lawyers. Here's a link to the actual decision, I suggest you read it: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14010883517992816574&scilh=0 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=140108835179928... . It goes through the conclusions of the case and quite thoroughly explains why the claim of fraud is wrong.